BV  811  .D34  1874 
Dale,  James  W.  1812-1881 
Christie  and  patristic 
baptism 


AN   INQUIRY 

INTO 

THE    USAGE    OF    BARTIZH, 

AND  TIIIC  NATUKE  OK 

CHRISTIC   AND   PATRISTIC 
BAPTISM, 

AH    ICXIIIIIITICI)    IN   Tint 

HOLY  SCRIPTURES  AND  PATRISTIC  WRITINCIS. 

BY 

JAMES   W.  ])AI:E,  ]).1). 

TAHTOlt   OK    WAVNIC    rKKSllYTKKI  AN    CIHIKOII,    DICr.AW  A  UK  COUNTY,    I'A. 


"  V<5i'l(.ii(.(i  iimuircstatu,  (umIuI,  coiihuoUicIo  vorltatl." 

CONCIU  CAKTIIAdlN. 

"Td  1 1  im,  I  lie  Kiiit;  of  (I'lil  li,  wliDSir  urciii  wonls  I  luivc,  iliiri'd  In  ex  |iiiiiiiil,  aiid  »  Iidnd 
Uslitcst  Hdlitiincui  oiitw(!i).;li.s  nil  l..i'  ImmiUn  (if  iijiii,  Im  il  r(>imiicli(l(Ml, — to  hli'ss  that 
which  Ih  truo,  but  to  forgive  and  In  lender  liaiinlcus  ils  Ihiiiuiii  (lolucts." — StIICU. 


ril  1  LA  I)  K  L  I'  II  I  A  : 

WM.    RUTTEJi    tt    (U). 

18  7  4. 


"  Sed  malumus  in  Scripturis  minus  si  forte  sapere,  quam  contra.  Proinde 
sensum  Domini  custodire  debemus  atqiie  prseceptum.  Non  est  levior  trans- 
gressio  in  interpretatione,  quam  in  conversatione." — Tertullian. 


"Right  exposition  is  at  variance  witli  all  heresy  ;  and  a  fuller  and  more 
literal  apprehension  of  Scripture  is,  at  the  same  time,  a  shield  against  doc- 
trinal error." — Pusey. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1874, 

By   JAMES    W.    DALE, 

In  the  Oifice  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


CAXTON  PRESS  OP  SHERMAN  &  CO., 
PUILADELPHIA. 


fROPERTTo? 

PEIXTCETOIT 
RtC.  NOV  IBbO 
THSOLOGIG^L. 

COURSE  OF  ARGUMENT. 


I.  What  is  Christic  Baptism? 

1.  Real;  2.  Ritual.  A  modern  theory.  Objections  to  this  theory :  Philo- 
logical, Chronological,  Symbological,  Exegetical,  ....         17-26 

1.  Baptism  of  Jesus  by  John.  A  covenant  baptism.  Not  "  the  baptism 
of  John."  A  formal  covenant,  with  ritual  symbol,  "  to  fulfil  all  righteous- 
ness,"                27-31 

2.  Baptism  of  Jesus  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Real  Baptism.  Qualifying  to 
fulfil  the  covenant  assumed,    ........         31-34 

3.  Baptism  of  Jesus  into  Penal  Death.  Emblemized  as  a  drinking  from  a 
cup.  Drank  through  life,  in  Gethsemane,  on  Calvary.  Not  martyr  bap- 
tism. The  ground  baptism  of  Christianity.  Baptism  by  drinking  from  a 
cup,  a  common  baptism  among  the  Classics.  Baptism  "  into  Christ"  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  secures  the  blessings  obtained  by  Christ  through  his  personal 
baptism  into  an  atoning  death, 34-52 

II.  Christ,  the  Baptizer  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  Holy  Ghost  abides  in  Christ  as  his  divine  anointing.  Christ  abides 
in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in  the  fulness  of  his  influence  lives,  overcomes  Satan, 
preaches  his  gospel,  works  bis  miracles,  offers  up  himself  upon  the  Cross, 
rises  from  the  dead,  ascends  on  high,  and  baptizes  the  souls  of  his  people, 

52-58 

1.  The  Apostles  Baptized  for  the  Apostleship.  A  baptism,  admittedly, 
without  a  dipping  or  a  covering.  By  "  pouring,"  language  based  on  actual 
baptism  by  pouring.  "  Baptism  =  subjection  to  full  influence."  Cloven 
tongues  the  emblem  in  this  baptism  as  water  in  ordinary  baptism,  and  as 
the  Dove  in  the  Saviour's  personal  baptism.  The  importance  of  this  bap- 
tism,                  .         58-95 

2.  Cornelius  and  other  Gentiles  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  A  higher 
baptism  than  with  water,"       ........         95-98 

3.  Saul's  Baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  No  evidence  of  a  ritual  baptism. 
Real  baptism  for  the  apostleship, 98-112 

4.  Baptism  of  the  Samaritans  by  the  Holy  Ghost.     Why  such  baptism, 

112-117 

5.  Baptism  of  the  Corinthians  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Translation.  Ad- 
mission.   "  Baptism  =  participation  in  influence."   All  share  in  it,     117-129 

III.  Christian  Baptism  Preached. 

1.  To  Jews  and  Proselytes.  Translation.  Interpretation  ;  Campbell, 
Pusey,  Baptists.  Nature  of  the  baptism,  spiritual,  "into  the  remission  of 
sins  "  through  repentance  and  faith  "upon"  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
Baptist  Quarterly, 129-153 

2.  The  Baptism  received  by  the  Gladly  Hearing.  "Baptized"  used  abso- 
lutely.    Difficulties  of  water  dipping.    Reasons  for  Real  baptism, .     153-162 

(  "i  ) 


IV  COURSE     OF     ARGUMENT. 


lY.  Baptism  Preached  incorporated  in  a  Kite. 

1.  Ritual  Bnptlsjn  of  Samaritans.  The  formula  declarative  of  the  Real 
baptism  symbolized  in  the  rite.  "  Into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Im- 
port. But  "one  baptism,"  realized  in  the  soul  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  symbolized  in  the  rite  by  the  nature  of  pure  water,  applied  to  the 
body, 1G2-181 

2.  Ritual  Baptism,  of  the  Eunuch.  The  only  case  under  Christianity  ap- 
pealed to  by  the  theory.  "  Some  Water."  The  Chariot.  Went  down. 
Came  up..    Into.     Out  of.     "The  rack." 182-201 

3.  Ritual  Baptism  of  Gentiles.  Perpetuity  of  ritual  baptism.  "  The 
water."  Observance  of  the  rite  commanded  "in  the  Name  of  the  Lord." 
The  use  of  "  water,"  not  quantity,  ordained, 202-209 

4.  Ritual  Baptism  of  John's  Ephesian  Disciples.  "Into  the  Name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus," 209-216 

5.  Ritual  Baptism  of  Crispus  and  Gaius.     "Into  the  name  of  Paul?" 

216-218 

V.  Ritual  Baptism  of  Households. 

1.  Lydia  and  her  Household.  2.  The  Jailer  and  all  his.  3.  Stephanas 
and  his  Household.  The  family  a  divine  institution.  Family  unity. 
Family  headship.    Individualism, 219-240 

VI.  Doctrinal  Truth  grounded  in  Real  Baptism. 

1.  Real  Baptism  begets  Holy  Living.  "  Baptism  into  Jesus  Christ  =  into 
his  death  "  is  not  ritual  baptism  with  water,  but  real  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  Carson,  Ripley,  Errett,  Fee.  Wilson,  Halley,  Beecher,  Stuart. 
Dr.  Pusey,  Patrists, 241-275 

2.  Real  Baptism  makes  full  in  Christ.  "  Baptized  into  Christ,"  the 
equivalent  of  "made  full  in  Christ," 275-282 

3.  Real  Baptism  makes  Christlike.  "  Baptized  into  Christ,"  the  equiva- 
lent of  "put  on  Christ."  Ritual  baptism  not  the  equivalent  of  the  one  or 
the  other, 282-293 

4.  Real  Baptism  into  Christ,  antitype  of  tlie  type  baptism  "into  Moses." 
The  Hebrew  of  Moses  and  the  Greek  of  Paul.  Israel  "baptized  into 
Moses  "  =  m,ade  fully  subject^  ........     293-310 

5.  Real  Baptism,  into  Christ  inconsistent  with  Baptism  into  Paul.  Sub- 
jection to  two  Masters  impossible, 310-315 

6.  Real  Baptism  into  Christ  secures  Resurrection  unto  Life.  Baptism 
for  the  dead,  what?     Historical  facts  uncertain,    ....     316-317 

7.  Real  Baptism  hito  Christ  makes  "  one  body."  The  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.     All  members  of  the  body  of  Christ  so  baptized,         .         .     318-323 

8.  Real  Baptism  beyond  comparison  with  ritual  baptism.  Not  the  opinion 
of  all.  Ritual  =  Real.  Ritual  same  relation  to  salvation  as  Repentance 
and  Faith.     Ritual  magnified.  Pepper,  Curtis,        ....     324-328 

9.  Real  Baptism,  is  by  Repentance  and  Faith  through  the  Holy  Ohost. 
Repentance  and  Faith  can  baptize.  Baptizings.  Baptism  into  unchastity 
by  teaching,      ,.......■■■     328-335 

10.  Real  Baptism  is  saving  antitype  baptism.    The  Ark  type  of  salvation, 

335-343 

11.  Real  Baptism  is  the  "  ONE  BAPTISM  "  of  Christianity.  Ritual  bapiism 
is  not  a  second,  diverse  bapti.sm,  but  is  the  same  one  baptism  declared  by 
words  and  shadowed  in  a  symbol, .     344-351 


COURSE     OF     ARGUMENT. 


VII.  Supposed  Allusions  to  Kitual  Baptism. 

1.  John  3  :  25,  A  question  about  purifying.  2.  John  3  :  5,  Bo7-7i  of  water 
and  the  Spirit.  3.  1  Cor.  6:  11,  Wasukd,  soticti/ied,  justified.  4.  Ephes. 
6  :  26,  Cleavsing  it  with  the  washing  of  water  5.  Titus  3  :  5,  Saved  us  by 
the  washing  of  regeneration.  6.  Heb.  10:22,  Our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water .^        ..........     352-384 

VIII.  Eeal  Baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
AND  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  Discipleship  into  Christ. 

1.  John  20:21-23.  2.  Luke  24:44-50.  3.  Acts  26:17,  18.  4.  Mark 
16:15,  16.     5.  Matt.  28:  19,  20. 

Discordant  translations.  Diversified  interpretations.  Unsatisfactory. 
Exposition.  Syriac  Version.  "  Baptize  into  "  is  the  equivalent  of  the  Syriac 
Stand  firm,  and  of  the  Hebrew  Lean  upon,  Believe  in.  Import,  subjection, 
reconciliatioyi,  and  affiliation  with  the  fully  revealed  Deity  through  "  the  ful- 
filment of  all  righteousness  "  in  the  incarnation,  obedience,  death,  and  me- 
diation of  the  Son  of  God,     .        .         .        .         .         .         .         .     385-469 


PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

I.  BAIITIZQ  IN  General  Usage. 

Agreement  with  Classic  usage.  Diiferences  as  compared  with  Inspired 
writers.  Use  of  analogous  words.  Ideal  element.  Spiritual  in  religious 
sphere,     473-487 

II.   BAHTISMA. 

This  word  in  Patristic  and  in  Inspired  writings  expresses  a  spiritual  and 
not  a  physical  condition.  Diverse  names.  Aou-pov,  spiritual  washing.  Di- 
verse baptisms;  blood,  tears,  fire,  clinic,  sjn-inkling,  pouring.  Without  dip- 
ping, pouring,  or  sprinkling,  ........     488-543 

III.   TAATI  Kai.  nNEYMATI. 

Water  and  Spirit  conjoint  agencies  in  Patristic  baptism.  Special  quality 
and  power  given  to  water  on  which  its  power  to  baptize  exclusively  depends, 

544-565 
IV.  2YN0AnTi2. 

Water  dipping  neither  Christian  nor  Patristic  baptism.  Symbol  of  burial 
with  Christ  in  his  rock  sepulchre.  Burial  applied  to  sin  drowned  and  left 
in  the  water, 566-580 

V.  BAIITIZQ  in  Special  Usage. 

In  religious  usage  neither  expresses  a  dipping  nor  &  physical  baptism  of 
any  kind.  Other  words  to  express  covering  and  uncovering  in  water.  These 
words  do  not  appear  in  Scripture  baptisms  because  there  was  no  covering 
and  uncovering  in  water  known  to  them.     Proof. 

Another  class  of  words  expressive  of  washing,  cleansing,  purification, 
(spiritual)  represent  panriCu.  Proof.  Usage  of  tingo.  Its  special  char- 
acter; susceptibility  of  double  use.  Tertullian's  usage  of  tingo  as  a  substi- 
tute for  (SaTTTi^u.  Complementary  relations  of  /JaTrW^w  ideal.  Proof  No 
physical  use  in  religious  sphere.     Proof, 581-622 

Conclusion. 
Origin  of  Inquiry.     Results  in  brief ;  special,  final,   .        .         .     628-630 


PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTUEE  EXPOUNDED. 


Matt.  3  :  15,  Baptism  of  Jesus  by  John, 

John  1  :  32,  Baptism  of  Jesus  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 

Mark  10 :  38,  39,  Baptism  of  Jesus  through  a  Cup, 

John  1  :  33,  Jesus,  baptizer  by  the  Holy  Ghost,    . 

Acts  1  :  5,  Apostles  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 

Acts  11  :  15,  16,  Cornelius  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 

Acts  9  :  17,  18;  22  :  13,  16;  26  :  14-18,  Baptism  of  Saul, 

Acts  8  :  15,  16,  Baptism  of  Samaritans, 

Acts  19  :  6,  Baptism  of  John's  disciples, 

1  Cor.  12  :  13,  Baptism  by  special  gifts. 

Acts  2  :  38,  Baptism  through  Repentance  and  Faith,  commanded 

Acts  2  :  41,  Baptism  through  Repentance  and  Faith,  received, 

Acts  8  :  12-16,  Ritual  baptism  of  Samaritans, 

Acts  8  :  35-38,  Ritual  baptism  of  the  Eunuch, 

Acts  10 :  47,  48,  Ritual  baptism  of  the  Gentiles,  . 

Acts  19 :  3-5,  Ritual  baptism  of  John's  disciples, 
^1  Cor.  1  :  13-15,  Ritual  baptism  of  Crispus  and  Gaius, 

Acts  16  :  15,  Ritual  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  household,     . 

Acts  16  :  33,  Ritual  baptism  of  the  Jailer  and  all  his, 

[l  Cor   1  :  16,  Ritual  baptism  of  Stephanas  and  his  household, 

Rom.  6  :  2-4,  Real  baptism  into  Christ, 

CoLOSS.  2  :  9-13,  Real  baptism  into  Christ,    .... 

Gai,.  3:  26,  27,  Real  baptism  into  Christ,      .... 

A  Cor.  10:  2,  Real  baptism  into  Moses,  type  of  Real  baptism  into  Christ, 

La  Cor.  1  :  13,  15,  Real  baptism  into  Paul  destructive  of  Real  baptism 

into  Christ, 

1  Cor.  15:  29,  "Baptism  for  the  dead," 

1  CoR.  12  :  13,  Real  baptism  makes  Christians  "  one  body," 
J.  1  Cor.  1  :  17,  Real  baptism  is  not  Ritual  baptism,  .         .         .         . 

Heb.  6  :  2,  Real  baptism  through  Repentance  and  Faith, 

1  Peter  3  :  21,  Real  baptism  is  Antitype  baptism,        .         .         .         . 

Ephes.  4  :  5,  Real  baptism  is  the  "  One  baptism,"         .         .         .         . 

John  3  :  25,  About  purifying, 

John  3  :  5.  Born  of  water  and  the  Spirit, 

1  Cor.  6  :  11,  Washed,  sanctified,  justified, 

Ephes.  5:26,  Washing  of  water  by  the  word, 

Titus  3:  5,  Washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 

Heb.  10:22,  Heart  sprinkled,  body  washed, 

John  20:  21-23,  The  Commission, 

Luke  24:  44-50,  The  Commission, 

Acts  26: 17,  18,  Saul's  Commission, 

Mark  16: 15,  16,  The  Commission, 

Matt.  28  :  19,  20,  The  Commission, 

(vi) 


PAGE 

27 

31 

34 

52 

58 

95 

98 

113 

114 

117 

130 

153 

163 

182 

202 

209 

216 

219 

219 

219 

241 

275 

282 

294 

310 
316 
318 
324 
328 
335 
344 
352 
355 
366 
369 
375 
381 
385 
386 
389 
390 
403 


CHRISTIC  BAPTISM. 


(vii) 


AXJTHORS  AND  WORKS  REFERRED  TO. 


JEsop. 

Achilles,  Tatius. 

Alcibiades. 

Alexander,  Prof.  J.  A. 

Alford. 

Ambrose. 

Apostol.  Canons. 

Arnold,  Prof.,  Bapt.  Th.  Sem., 

Chicago. 
Athanasius. 
Athenseus. 
Augustine. 
Baptist  Bib.  Vers. 
Baptist  Manual. 
Baptist  Quarterly. 
Barclay. 

Basil,  of  CEesarea. 
Basil  M. 

Beecher,  Presid.  E. 
Bengel. 
Bloomfield. 
Booth. 

Brantley,  Rev.  Dr. 
Brentius. 
Brunner,  Presid. 
Calvin. 

Campbell,  Alex.  (Beth.  Coll.) 
Carson,  Alex.,  LL.D. 
Cathcart,  Rev.  Dr. 
Chase,  Prof.,  Newton  Th.  Sem. 
Chrysostom. 
Clarke,  Adam. 
Clemens,  Alex. 
Clemens,  Rom. 
Codex  Sinaiticus. 
Conant,  J.  T. 
Conon. 

Cox,  F.  A.  (London). 
Cremer.  Prof.  Hermann. 
Curtis,  Prof. 
Cyprian. 


Cyril,  of  Jerus. 

Dagg,  Prof.  J.  L. 

De  Wette. 

Didymus,  Alex. 

Ebrard. 

Ellicott. 

Ernesti. 

Errett,  Isaac. 

Evenus. 

Ewing,  Prof.  (Glasgow). 

Fairbairn. 

Fee,  Prof.  J.  G. 

Firmilian. 

Fuller,  R.,  D.D. 

Gale. 

Gill,  Dr. 

Godwin,  Prof.  (London). 

Greg.  Naz. 

Hackett,  H.,  Prof,  Roch.  Th. 

Sem. 
Halley,  Presid.  R.  (England). 
Harrison,  Prof.,  Univ.  of  Va. 
Herodotus. 
Hilary. 
Hodge. 
Homer. 
Ignatius. 

Ingham  (London). 
Irenseus. 
Jelf. 
Jerome. 
Josephus. 

Jewett,  M.  P.,  Prof. 
J.  M.  R.  (Western  Recorder). 
John  of  Damascus. 
Judson,  Dr.  A. 
Justin,  M. 
Krehl. 
Ktihner. 
Kuinoel. 
Lanee. 


Lightfoot. 

Lloyd,  J.  T.  (Rel.  Herald). 

Lucian. 

Luther. 

Marcus  Eremita. 

Matthies. 

Methodius. 

Meyer. 

Middleton. 

Morell  (Edinburgh). 

Murdock,  J.,  Prof 

Neander. 

Newcome,  Archbishop. 

Olshausen. 

Origen. 

Owen,  Rev.  John. 

Pearce,  Rt.  Rev. 

Pengilly. 

Pepper,  Prof,  Crozer  Th.Sem. 

Plato. 

Plutarch. 

Pusey,  Prof.  E.  B. 

Ripley,  Prof.,  Newton  Theol. 

Sem. 
Rosenmiiller. 
Schaaf,  Prof. 
Stier. 

Stovel,  C.  (London). 
Stuart. 
Tertulliau. 
Turretin. 
Veuema. 
Vitringa. 
Wardlaw. 
Wayland,  Presid. 
Wesley,  John. 
Wickham. 

Wilson,  Prof.  (Belfast). 
Winer. 
Xenophon. 
Zuingle. 


(  viii  ) 


CHRISTIC  BAPTISM. 

WHAT  IS   ITS   NATURE  AND   HOW   DOES   IT   ILLUSTRATE  THE 
USAGE  OF 

B  A  n  T  f  ZQf 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIC  BAPTISM? 

Christic  Baptism  is  Christ's  baptism  in  its  various  aspects  : 
1.  The  baptism  received  by  Christ  personally;  2.  The  immediate 
baptism  of  sinners  administered  by  Christ  personally;  3.  The 
ritual  baptism  of  such  authorized  by  Christ  to  be  administered  b}' 
others ;  4.  The  everlasting  baptism  secured  by  Christ  for  the  re- 
deemed. Christic  baptism  as  established  b}'^  Christ  has  a  twofold 
character:  1.  Real;  2.  Ritual.  Real  Christic  baptism  is  a  thor- 
ough change  in  the  moral  condition  of  the  soul  effected  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  uniting  to  Christ  by  repentance  and  faith,  and 
through  Christ  re-establishing  filial  and  everlasting  relation  with 
the  living  God — Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  Ritual  Christic 
baptism  is  not  another  and  diverse  baptism,  but  is  one  and  the 
same  baptism  declared  by  word,  and  exhibited  (as  to  its  purify- 
ing nature)  by  pure  water  applied  to  the  body ;  symbolizing  the 
cleansing  of  the  soul  through  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ  by  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

Every  symbol  is  necessarily  imperfect  as  compared  with  the 
wholeness  of  that  which  is  symbolized.  No  symbol  can  exhibit 
everything  which  enters  into  the  object  symbolized.  A  symbol, 
ordinarily  if  not  necessaril}',  exhibits  one  thing  and  not  many 
things.  The  type  lamb  slain  on  Abel's  altar  exhibited  one  thing — 
the  death  of  the  Antitype  Lamb  slain  on  Calvary.  The  Bread  and 
the  Wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper  as  sources  of  life  to  the  body  sym- 

2  (17) 


18  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

bolize  one  thing — the  body  and  the  blood  of  Clirist  as  sources  of 
life  to  the  soul.  The  antecedent  type  (the  Lamb  slain)  sets  forth 
substitutionary  death  ;  the  consequent  symbols  (Bread  and  Wine) 
set  forth  life  proceeding  from  that  deatli.  Water  has  by  universal 
acknowledgment  a  physically  purifying  quality,  and  hence,  has 
been  accepted  in  all  ages  as  a  symbol  of  purity,  in  religious  rites. 
The  fundamental  characteristic  of  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
(Real  Christie  baptism)  is  moral  purification.  This  characteristic 
is  selected  by  divine  wisdom  for  symbolization  by  water  in  ritual 
Christie  baptism.  And  having  performed  this  one  duty,  we  say 
that  the  symbolizing  function  of  the  water  is  exhausted.  It  is  a 
matter  of  universal  admission,  that  if  this  be  the  sole  office  of  the 
water  then,  neither  quantity  nor  mode  of  use  has  any  place  for 
consideration.     But  such  sole  office  is  denied. 

A  modern  theory  respecting  ritual  Christian  baptism  throws 
into  deepest  shadow  this  idea  of  purification,  and  declares,  that 
another  and  diverse  baptism,  namely,  a  dipping  into  water  (not 
found  in  and  not  possible  to  the  real  baptism),  constitutes  both 
the  spirit  and  the  substance  of  the  rite  ;  and,  that  in  it  is  exhibited 
a  death.,  a  hurial,  a  resurrection.,  a  grave,  a  womb,  a  pollution,  and 
somewhere,  somehow,  a  purification.  This  theory  is  so  unique  in 
the  complexity  and  perplexity  of  its  symbolism,  and  is  so  grievous, 
(as  declared  by  them)  to  its  friends  in  compelling  a  separation 
from  all  God's  people  who  receive  but  "one  baptism"  (the  real 
Christie  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  its  ritual  Christie  bap- 
tism by  water),  that  it  becomes  necessary  to  draw  out  its  details 
for  a  rational  judgment  and  a  Scriptural  determination.  This  I 
will  endeavor  to  do  by  briefly  adducing  the  statements  of  those 
who  arc  of  acknowledged  authority  among  its  friends. 

1.  This  theory  says:  God  commands,  in  baptism,  a  definite  act 
to  be  done,  which  act  is  expressed  by  the  word  Ba-vi'^w,  "a  word 
which  has  but  one  meaning,  to  dij)  and  nothing  but  dip,  through 
all  Greek  literature."  Evidence:  "  In  baptism  we  are  commanded 
to  i)erform  the  act  represented  hij  the  word  baptize."  Prof.  M. 
P.  Jewett  (p.  40).  "  The  word  baptize  is  perfectly  sufficient  for 
me  wh3'  baptism  implies  immersion  without  a  particle  of  evidence 
from  any  otlier  thing."  Carson  (p.  144).  "The  action  which 
Jesus  Clirist  commanded  in  tlie  word  lianri%w  calls  for  exact  obe- 
dience;  this  word  indicates  a  specific  action,  and  can  have  but 
one  meaning;  it  derives  its  meaning  and  immutable  form  from 
Bdr.Tw,  and  therefore  inherits  the  proi)er  meaning  of  the  bap,  which 


WHAT    IS    CIIRISTIC    BAPTISM?  19 

is  dip:'  Alex.  Campbell  {pp.  110-120).  "  The  text  (Matt.  28  :  19) 
shows  the  appointment  of  immersion  in  water."  Stovel  {p.  47 D). 
"  As  soon  as  the  convert  goes  down  into  the  water  to  ohey  Jesus 
.  .  .  cease  to  resist  the  truth.  .  .  .  Can  you  trifle  with  baptism  ?  .  .  . 
'Arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash  away  thy  sins.'  These  are  the 
words  of  God  himself,  and  take  care  how  you  slight  tliem.  It 
is  a  plain  duty  which  you  may  not  evade  without  insult  to  the 
Saviour  and  peril  to  your  soul,  ...  I  warn  you  that  the  gospel " 
(dipping  into  water)  ''is  to  be  obei/ed  as  well  as  believed.  .  .  .  '  lie 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned.'     Saved  or  damned?"  Fuller  (pp.  9,  104). 

2.  The  theory  says:  The  water  in  baptism  represents  a  grave. 
Evidence:  "In  baptism  we  are  figuratively  put  into  the  grave 
along  with  him.  In  our  baptism  we  are  emblematically  laid  in  the 
grave  with  Christ."   Carson  (p.  143). 

3.  The  theory  says  :  Death  precedes  the  baptism  or  takes  place 
in  and  by  the  baptism.  Evidence:  "The  external  ordinance 
represents  a  burial  and  supposes,  of  course,  a  death  to  have  taken 
place.  .  .  .  We  do  not  believe  in  death  by  drowning  as  being 
represented  in  this  ordinance,  although  this  appears  to  have  been 
the  belief  of  a  few  Baptists."  Ingham.!  London  (p.  258). 

4.  The  theory  says :  The  burial  in  this  symbol  water-grave  is 
of  varied  significance.  Evidence:  1.  It  refers  to  a  burial  in  Jor- 
dan. "The  baptismal  water  reminds  of  the  Jordan  when  Jesus 
went  down  into  the  water  and  was  buried."  Prof.  Pepper.,  The 
Relation  of  Baptism  and  Communion  (p.  10).  2.  It  refers  to  a 
burial  in  the  rock  sepulcln-e  of  Joseph.  "  As  Jesus  was  buried 
in  the  tomb  of  Joseph,  so  we  are  buried  by  baptism.  We  are 
buried  with  Christ."  Ingham  (^o.  251).  3.  It  refers  to  a  burial  of 
the  old  man.  "  In  our  baptismal  burial  we  emblematically  deposit 
our  moral  corruption.^'  Prof.  Ripley .^  Reply  to  Stuart  (p.  94). 

5.  The  theory  says :  The  lifting  out  of  this  water-grave  is  a 
symbol  of  the  resurrection.  Evidence  :  "  Baptism  might  have  a 
reference  to  burial  without  resurrection.  These  two  things  are 
quite  distiiict."  Carson  (p.  140).  This  resurrection,  like  the 
burial,  is  multiple  in  character.  1.  It  refers  to  the  resurrection 
of  Christ.  "  The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  set  forth  in  baptism." 
Prof.  Pepper  (p.  10).  2.  The  resurrection  of  the  baptized.  "  'IMie 
central  prophecy  of  baptism  is  the  believer's  glorious  resurrection 
at  the  Lord's  second  coming."  Prof.  Pepper  (p.  19).  3.  The 
resurrection  of  the  new  man.     "  The  external  act  of  baptism  is  a 


20  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

symbol  of  the  burying  of  the  old  man  and  the  rising  up  of  the  new 
man."   Christian  (C.  B.)  Quarterly  (July,  1872,  p.  405). 

6.  The  theor}'  sa3's :  The  acts  in  baptism  which  make  up  a  dip- 
ping (putting  into  and  taking  out  of)  are  of  a  symbol  character. 
Evidence :  "  It  is  possible  that  an  ordinance  performed  by  immer- 
sion might  have  had  no  instruction  in  the  mode.  It  might  have 
been  all  in  the  water.  Had  not  the  Apostle  explained  this  ordi- 
nance we  should  have  had  no  right  so  to  do."  Carson  (p.  456). 
""  In  scriptural  baptism  there  is  a  literal  going  down  into  the  water 

and  there  is  a  literal  rising  up  from  the  water.  The  literal  action 
included  in  baptism  represents  spiritual  and  important  truth.  This 
is  the  Divine  arrangement  and  purpose  in  connection  with  this 
ordinance,  as  it  is  also  with  the  breaking  of  bread,  &c.,  in  the 
Lord's  Supper."  Ingham  (p.  252). 

7.  The  theory  says :  The  water  in  baptism  is  a  womb.  Evi- 
dence :  "  To  be  born  of  water  most  evidently  implies,  that  water 
is  the  womb  out  of  which  the  person  who  is  born  proceeds.  To  be 
born  of  water  is  that  birth  which  is  represented  by  being  immersed 
in  water.     To  emerge  out  of  the  water  is  like  a  birth."   Carson 

(p.  47r.). 

8.  The  theory  says  :  The  grave  of  baptism  is  a  place  for  the  de- 
posit of  pollution.  Evidence  :  "  Baptism  proclaims  the  sinner's 
pollution."  Pengilly  (p.  113).  "When  we  rise  from  this  grave 
we  leave  our  moral  loathsomeness  behind,  and  rise  to  a  new  and 
holy  life."  Prof.  Ripley  {p.  94). 

9.  The  theory  says :  The  water  in  baptism  is  an  emblem  of 
purification.  Evidence  :  "  The  water  in  baptism  must  be  an  em- 
blem, not  a  means.  The  purification  of  the  heart  is  b}^  faith.  This 
washing  takes  place  before  baptism.  Baptism  is  an  emblem  of 
this  washing  and  regeneration."  Carson  (p.  479).  "  If  in  baptism 
there  be  a  perfect  emblem  of  purification,  immersion  must  be  the 
mode."  Ingham  (p.  260).  This  washing  must  be  of  the  entire 
body,  because  depravity  is  entire.  "  There  is  good  reasou  for 
employing  so  much  water  as  to  immerse  the  body.  If  the  Chris- 
tian felt  his  entire  depravity,  his  utter  defilement  from  the  crown 
of  his  head  to  the  sole  of  his  foot,  and  desired  to  be  thoroughly 
washed  from  his  iniquity,  he  might  crave  the  entire  immersion  of 
his  body  in  the  waters  of  baptism,  as  symbolic  of  the  universal 
cleansing  which  he  sought  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Prof.  M.  P.  Jewell  {p.  99). 

10.  The  theory  says :  Baptism  is  emblematic  of  suffering.   Evi- 


WHAT    IS    CHRISTIC    BAPTISM?  21 

dence  :  "  Baptism  is  a  figure  of  our  Lord's  overwhelming  suffer- 
ings.^^ Pengilly  (p.  114). 

II.  The  logic  of  this  theory  as  declared  by  its  friends  is  this: 
Outside  of  this  theory  there  is  no  baptism,  no  Lord's  Supper,  no 
Christian  ministrj^,  no  Christian  church — and  by  the  same  inex- 
orable logic,  no  Christian  man.  Evidence :  "  Christian  baptism 
is  immersion  of  a  believer  in  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost — nothing  else  is.  Baptist  churches  are  the 
only  Christian  churches  in  existence.  Pedobaptists  have  no  right 
to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Whenever  they  partake  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per they  partake  unworthily  and  eat  and  drink  damnation  to  them- 
selves." J.  T.  Lloyd  (Religious  Herald).  "  For  Baptists  to  call 
Pedobaptist  bodies  churches  having  the  right  to  administer  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  logical  insanity  and  idiocy."  J.  31.  R.  {Western 
Recorder). 

Which  is  the  more  curious,  the  theory  itself  or  these  logical 
deductions,  it  would  be  difficult  to  estimate.  This  however  is 
certain :  All  who  accept  the  one,  or  the  other,  or  both,  have  a  just 
claim  on  our  deepest  sympathy,  because  of  that  intellectual  and 
moral  burden  which  they  have  unwittingly  assumed,  and  which 
they  declare  to  be  "  grievous  and  hard  to  be  borne."  Conscience 
is  a  sacred  thing.  It  is  still  venerable  in  its  root  even  while  re- 
volting in  its  fruit  in  verily  thinking,  that  it  does  God  service  by 
filling  Saul  with  threatenings  and  slaughter,  and  sprinkling  his 
garments  with  martyr  blood,  or  in  prompting  the  theory  to  exclude 
from  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  his  redeemed  ones  when  the 
memorial  ordinance  is  spread  b}'  its  friends,  and  declaring  that 
they  act  a  lie — an  unintelligent  lie* — when  they  venture  to  sit, 
down  at  the  Lord's  table  among  themselves. 

Every  high  priest  taken  from  among  men  should  be  one  "  who 

*  "  A  believer,  acting  as  a  believer,  cannot  act  a  lie.  But  if  one  with  fall 
knowledge  of  the  import  of  the  rites  begin  with  the  Communion,  he  does  act 
a  lie.  He  says  in  act,  in  a  most  solemn,  formal  act,  '  I  have  a  spiritual  life 
which  did  not  begin.'  If  he  be  baptized  after  he  has  communed,  he  lies,  for 
he  solemnly,  sacramentally  affirms,  I  now  first  begin  a  life,  which  yet  he 
has  long  declared  to  be  his.  He  comes  into  Christ  for  the  first  time,  though 
he  has  been  already  abiding  in  him.  In  declaring  such  acts  to  be  lies,  it  is 
only  on  the  supposition  that  the  acts  are  performed  intelligently,  with  an 
understanding  of  their  true  nature.  Our  argument  requires  the  considera- 
tion of  no  other  cases."  G.  D.  B.  Pepper,  Prof,  of  TheoL,  Crozer  Sent.  Bap- 
tism and  Communion  {p.  34). 


22  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

can  have  compassion  on  the  ignorant  and  on  them  that  are  out  of 
the  way ;  for  that  he  himself  also  is  compassed  with  infirmity'." 
We  should  be  mindful  of  this  "  infirmity,"  and  be  emulous"  of  this 
high  priestly  spirit  in  dealing  with  this  most  remarkable  theory, 
"  speaking  the  truth  in  love  "  fully  persuaded,  that  the  theory  and 
its  logic  are  alike  held  "  in  all  good  conscience,"  even  when,  In 
their  characteristic  vocabulary,  they  stigmatize  God's  people  as 
Communion  Table  liars. 

OBJECTIONS   TO    THIS    THEORY. 

There  are  some  objections  to  this  theory  which  appear  on  its 
face,  that  it  may  be  well  to  state  briefly  before  entering  on  a  more 
detailed  prosecution  of  our  inquiry. 

1.  Philological.  This  inquiry  has  advanced  sufficiently  far  to 
warrant  the  statement,  that  the  philological  basis  of  the  theory 
neither  has  nor  ever  had  any  existence.  The  corner-stone  of  the 
theory  (not  the  stone  supporting  one  corner,  but  every  corner 
and  all  between  the  four  corners)  is  the  word  BanTi^w.  Now,  if 
anything  out  of  mathematics  was  ever  proved,  it  has  been  proved 
that  this  word  does  not  mean  to  dip  ;  that  it  never  did,  that  it 
never  can  so  mean,  without  there  be  first  an  utter  metamorphosis 
as  to  its  essential  character.  That  which  above  all  other  things 
discriminates  and  puts  a  great  gulf  between  BaTzri^u)  and  "  dip  " 
is  the  time  of  intusposition  demanded,  respectively,  for  their 
objects.  "  Dip  "  puts  its  object  in  a  condition  of  intusposition 
momentarily  ;  it  puts  in  and  draws  out ;  BaTzii'l.o)  demands  a  con- 
dition of  intusposition  for  its  object  without  any  limitation  as  to 
•the  time  of  continuance  in  such  condition,  but  allows  it  to  remain 
for  ages  or  an  eternity.  There  are  no  writings  in  which  these 
discriminating  characteristics  are  more  essential  or  more  boldly 
presented  than  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  obvious,  that  under  these 
meanings  no  one  can  be  baptized  into  water',  for  death  must  fol- 
low, and  therefore,  the  theory  apologetically  introduces  "  dip  " 
and  says  :  "  The  command  of  God  to  baptize  Christians  into  water 
cannot  be  obeyed,  therefore  dipping  into  water  must  be  substi- 
tuted." But  might  it  not  be  well  to  review  the  theory  and  in- 
quire, whether  God  ever  gave  any  command  to  baptize  his  people 
into  water  ?  In  fact,  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  for  any 
such  command.  Inasmuch  as  there  is  no  element  in  Banri^u)  for 
withdrawing  its  object  from  the  water,  there  is  nothing  in  Chris- 
tian baptism  to  play  the  part  of  "  resurrection  from  a  grave,"  or 


OBJECTIONS    TO    THIS    THEORY.  23 

of  "  birth  from  a  womb."  And  if  there  is  no  provision  for  taking 
out  of  this  grave  and  womb,  it  will  be  hard  to  find  any  one  who 
will  be  willing  to  go  into  this  water-grave-womb.  As  the  theory 
cannot  exist  without  a  dipping^  and  as  DanziZu)  makes  no  provision 
for  a  dipping,  its  philological  foundation  falls  out  bodily. 

2.  Chronological.  A  second  difficulty  confronting  the  theory 
is  chronological.  Dr.  Pepper,  Prof,  of  Tlieology  in  Crozer  Baptist 
Theological  Seminary,  says  (Baptism  and  Communion,  p.  26), 
"  Turn  now  to  the  two  ordinances,  and  note  the  times  of  their 
institution.  The  puerile  inquiry,  raised  in  defence  of  Rantism, 
whether  John's  Baptism  was  Christian  Baptism,  we  may  assume, 
can  have  only  one  answer,  and  that  affirmative.  The  time  of  the 
institution  of  Baptism  is  thus  fixed  at  the  beginning  of  John's 
ministry."  Not  caring,  just  now,  to  engage  "  in  defence  of 
Rantism"  (whatever  that  may  be),  nor  to  intermeddle  in  any 
*' puerile  inquiry,"  I  propose  a  chronological  inquiry  in  relation 
to  burial  and  resurrection  as  entering  into  a  baptism  by  dipping 
into  water.  The  inquiry  is  this :  Where  from  the  beginning  to 
the  ending  of  John's  ministry  is  there  one  word  said  about 
"burial  and  resurrection"  being  elements  in  baptism?  Extend- 
ing the  chronological  range  I  would  inquire :  Where  in  all  the 
ministry  of  Peter,  beginning  at  the  baptism  of  Pentecost  among 
the  Jews,  and  extending  through  the  baptism  at  Csesarea  among 
the  Gentiles,  to  the  Bible  close  of  his  Apostolic  work,  where  does 
a  burial  or  a  resurrection  appear  in  his  baptizing  ?  Extend  the 
period  through  the  entire  history  of  the  Church  as  given  in  the 
book  of  Acts,  and  where  among  its  many  recorded  baptisms  do 
we  find  a  record  of  burials  and  resurrections  ?  It  is  not  until 
more  than  a  quarter  of  hundred  years  after  "  the  institution  of 
Baptism"  that  such  terms  are  found  in  connection  with  the  word 
baptize,  and  then  not  in  the  administration  of  ritual  baptism,  not 
in  the  exposition  of  ritual  baptism,  and  not  in  connection  with 
ritual  baptism  in  any  way.  '"  Buried  with  Christ  by  hapthnX  into 
HIS  death"  is  no  more  burial  with  Christ  by  bapitisni  into  water, 
than  George  the  Third  of  England  is  George  Washington  of 
America,  because  "  George  "  appears  in  both  names.  "  The  Third 
of  England"  expounds  the  first  George,  and  "Washington  of 
America"  expounds  the  second  George;  so,  "into  his  death" 
expounds  the  first  "baptism,"  and  "into  ti;afer"  expounds  the 
second  "baptism."  And  these  baptisms  ai'c  as  diverse  from  each 
other  as  the  George  of  England  is  diverse  from  the  George  of 


24  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

America.  It  is  an  embarrassment  which  confronts  those  who 
make  bnrial  and  resurrection  the  grand  features  of  ritual  baptism, 
that  from  the  time  of  John  until  the  time  of  Paul's  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  there  is  not  one  word 
of  Scripture  on  which  they  can  hang  their  theory. 

But  there  is  a  longer  chronological  period  which  claims  atten- 
tion. It  extends  through  a  thousand  years.  And  what  I  would 
ask  of  the  friends  of  the  theory  is  this  :  What  is  the  name 
of  one  man  who  during  a  thousand  years  after  the  institution 
of  baptism  wrote  or  said  or  believed  that  dipping  into  water 
was  Christian  baptism?  In  other  words,  tell  us  of  one  man 
among  the  millions  of  ten  centuries  who  believed  the  theory,  or 
would  have  thought  it  worthy  of  consideration.  Do  not  mistake 
my  demand.  The  inquiry  is  not,  for  one  who  practiced  the 
covering  of  the  body  in  water  in  ritual  baptism ;  nor  is  it,  for  one 
who  interpreted  such  baptism  as  a  burial  and  resurrection  ;  there 
is  not  only  one  such,  but  one  legion ;  but  what  is  sought  is  quite 
other  than  this,  to  wit :  one  who  believed  that  this  covering  with 
ivater  was  Christian  Baptism. 

If  this  theory  of  baptism  is  so  alien  from  the  teaching  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  that  no  one  for  some  thousand  and  a  half  thou- 
sand years  ever  found  it  there,  then,  there  is  a  portentous  chron- 
ological diflSculty  in  the  way  of  its  acceptance  in  these  latter  days, 
so  long  as  we  have  the  Bible  in  our  hands. 

If  it  should  be  asked,  Why  these  ancient  worthies  "covered 
with  water"  in  baptism?  I  answer:  For  the  same  reason  that 
they  baptized  men  and  women  naked.  And  precisely  here  (in 
the  absolute  nudity  of  the  ancients  and  in  the  water-tight  India- 
rubber  vestments  of  the  moderns)  is  revealed  the  antipodal  char- 
acter of  these  baptisms.  The  ancients  believed,  that  there  was 
a  vis  baptismatis  in  the  water  which  applied  to  the  body  reached 
to  the  soul,  and  thus  effected  Christian  Baptism  ;•  therefore  this 
water  was  applied  to  the  whole  body  naked  for  the  better  devel- 
opment of  its  baptizing  power.  The  friends  of  the  modern 
theory  adopt  the  empty  water  covering  of  the  ancients  while  they 
reject  their  soul  baptism,  substituting  for  it  the  unknown,  un- 
scriptural,  impossible  baptism — dipping  into  water. 

3.  Symbological.  Another  difficulty  of  the  theory  is  its  very 
remarkable  symbology.  Symbols,  lilte  words,  have  one  definite 
meaning.  If  words  in  the  same  utterance  cannot  have  many  and 
diverse  meanings,  neither  can  symbols.    The  Bible  is  full  of  sym- 


OBJECTIONS    TO    THIS    THEORY.  25 

bols,  t3'pes,  and  emblems,  from  the  Tree  of  Life  in  Eden  to  tlie 
River  of  Life  flowing  out  of  the  throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb  in 
heaven ;  but  in  no  one  through  all  these  intervening  ^.ges  can 
there  be  found  many  and  diverse  meanings.  A  false  interpreta- 
tion once  taught,  that  the  words  of  Scripture  meant  all  that  could 
be  put  into  them ;  the  theor}^  adopts  this  principle  in  its  interpre- 
tation of  ritual  Baptism.  Out  of  the  elements  entering  into  this 
ordinance  are  selected  as  s3'mbolic,  the  water,  the  believer,  and  the 
double  action  putting  into  and  taking  out  of.  The  administrator 
is  not  used  in  the  interpretation,  only  his  eliminated  acts ;  neither 
is  any  use  made  of  those  great  words  (the  very  soul  of  the  ordi- 
nance) ^'' into  Christ,"  "into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  save  in  a  jejune  and  destructive 
interpretation,  "  by  the  authority  of."  What  is  left  out,  however, 
has  its  compensation  in  the  quantity  of  that  which  is  put  in. 
.The  water  appears  in  three  offices :  1,  of  a  grave ;  2,  of  a  womb; 
3,  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  As  a  grave  the  living  "believer"  is 
put  into  it;  (1.)  As  dead  with  Christ;  (2.)  As  dead,  by  natural 
death ;  (3.)  As  "  the  old  man  "  dead,  to  be  buried  and  to  be  left 
in  the  grave.  And  he  is  taken  out  of  the  grave,  (1.)  As  risen 
with  Christ;  (2.)  As  risen  at  Christ's  second  coming;  (3.)  As 
risen  "  a  new  man"  to  holy  living.  This  would  seem  to  be  enough 
of  symbolization  for  one  transaction.  It  is,  however,  only  the 
beginning.  The  water  must,  again,  appear  in  a  wholly  new  office, 
that  of  a  womb.  The  interpretation,  here,  is  not  so  complex  but 
is  more  perplexed ;  since  the  putting  into  the  water  and  the 
taking  out  of  the  water  are  both  represented  as  a  birth,  hi  its 
third  office  the  water  appears  as  the  blood  of  Christ.  And  Pro- 
fessor Jewett  tells  us  (with  a  humanism  which  responds  to  the 
naked  baptism  of  old),  that  total  depravity  calls  for  a  total  cover- 
ing in  this  S3'mbol  blood.  Into  this  symbol  blood  the  "  believer" 
is  dipped,  and  under  it  he  leaves  his  pollution,  being  drawn  out 
washed  and  without  spot. 

It  is  hardl}^  necessary  to  saj',  that  such  exposition  is  no  more 
grounded  in  the  Scripture  than  it  is  in  common  sense.  It  is  vain 
to  plead,  that  burial  with  Christ,  and  resurrection,  and  new  birth, 
and  cleansing  b}'  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  are  in  the  Scriptures. 
They  are  there ;  but  they  are  not  there  impossibly  and  absurdly 
piled  up  upon  the  ritual  water  whose  one  and  sole  office  it  is  to 
symbolize  the  purification  of  the  soul  by  the  blood  of  Christ, 
through  the  H0I3'  Ghost.    If  the  theory  did  not  lose  every  element 


26  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  life  under  its  absolute  repudiation  bj'  philology,  if  it  could  find 
a  better  status  in  the  chronolog}^  of  ages,  still,  such  symbolization 
must  constitute  a  monument  under  which  it  must  be  forever 
buried. 

4.  Exegetical.  The  theory  which  makes  Christian  Baptism  to 
consist  in  a  dipping  into  water  in  the  name  ("b}'  the  authority") 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  as  absolutely 
rejected  by  a  just  exegesis  of  the  Word  of  God,  as  it  is  by  phi- 
lology, chronology,  and  the  law  of  Symbols.  This  it  is  now  our 
business  to  establish.  The  result  will,  we  think,  show  beyond 
any  question,  that  this  modern  theory  teaches  a  baptism  which  is 
not  only  not  commanded  in  the  Scriptures,  not  only  imperfect  in 
its  nature,  but  is  a  pure  and  absolute  abandonment  of  that  bap- 
tism which  God  has  ordained  in  his  word. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  individual  cases 
under  Christie  Baptism. 


CHRISTIC  BAPTISM:  BAPTISM  RECEIVED  BY 
CHRIST. 

BAPTISM  OF  JESUS  BY  JOHN. 

Matthew  3 :  15. 

OvTU  yap  nptwov  lariv  rj/uv  irXTjpuaaL  ndaav  SmacoavvTjv, 
"  Thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness." 

WHAT    BAPTISM    DID   JESUS   RECEIVE    FROM   JOHN  ? 

A  Covenant  Baptism. 

JoHANNic  Baptism  concluded  with  a  cousideration  of  the  place 
where  the  Lord  Jesus  was  baptized  by  his  Forerunner.  The 
nature  of  the  baptism  then  received  was  not  considered,  because 
it  did  not  pertain  to  "John's  baptism,"  but  was  grounded  in  that 
peculiar  work  for  the  accomplishment  of  which  the  Son  of  God 
was  made  manifest  in  the  flesh — "the  fulfilment  of  all  righteous- 
ness." It  is  one  thing  to  be  baptized  by  John  and  quite  another 
thing  to  receive  the  "  baptism  of  John."  Therefore,  while  the 
Scriptures  teach  us  that  Jesus  came  to  the  Jordan  to  be  baptized 
by  John,  they  do  not  teach  us  that  he  came  to  receive  John's 
baptism.  Indeed  it  is  impossible,  in  any  just  aspect  of  the  case, 
that  he  could  have  received  it.  Whatever  involves  an  absurdity 
must  be  impossible  and  untrue.  That  an  absurdity  is  involved 
in  such  a  supposition  is  thus  shown:  "The  baptism  of  John" 
was  for  sinners;  demanding  "repentance,"  "fruits  meet  for  re- 
pentance," and  promising  "the  remission  of  sins."  But  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  was  not  a  sinner,  could  not  repent  of  sin,  could  not 
bring  forth  fruit  meet  for  repentance  on  account  of  sin,  could  not 
receive  the  remission  of  sin.  Therefore  the  reception  of  "the 
baptism  of  John"  by  Jesus  is  impossible,  untrue,  and  absurd. 
Again:  The  baptism  of  John  was  "to  prepare  a  people  for  the 
Lord."  But  to  address  such  a  baptism  to  the  Lord  (preparing 
the  Lord  for  himself)  is  absurd.  Therefore  the  reception  of 
John's  baptism   by  the  Lord  Jesus  is  impossible,  untrue,  and 

(27  ) 


28  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

absurd.  It  is  just  as  absurd  to  suppose  that  be  received  this  bap- 
tism formally  but  not  substantially.  A  baptism  exists  only  while 
its  essence  exists.  The  essence  of  John's  ritual  baptism  is  found 
in  its  symbolization  of  purification  in  the  soul  through  repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sin.  But  in  the  Lord  Jesus  there  was  no 
basis  for  such  symbolization,  and  consequentl}' there  was  no  basis 
for  the  baptism  of  John.  The  idea  that  John's  baptism  could  be 
received  representatively  is  just  as  impossible.  To  the  glory  of 
God  in  the  highest,  the  Lord  Jesus  did  "bear  our  iniquities,"  was 
"made  sin  for  us;"  but  he  was  not  hereby  the  more  qualified  to 
receive  John's  baptism.  The  Lord  Jesus  did  not  represent  peni- 
tent sinners,  nor  sinners  whose  iniquities  were  remitted.  He 
came  as  the  Friend  of  publicans  and  sinners,  to  call  sinners  to 
repentance,  to  give  repentance  to  Israel ;  there  was  no  adaptation 
in  the  baptism  of  John  to  such  Sin-Bearer.  He  must  accomplish 
a  baptism  for  himself;  it  must  be  of  blood  and  not  of  water; 
"  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sin  "  such 
as  Jesus  bore.  In  his  character  as  Bearer  of  the  sins  of  others,  be 
neither  had  nor  could  have  anything  to  do  with  John's  baptism. 

The  Bearer  of  Sin  must  be  baptized  ;  but  it  is  with  a  baptism 
which  none  other  can  share.  It  must  be  the  baptism  of  one  who 
is  able  "to  fulfil  all  righteousness,"  and  to  bear  the  penalty  of  a 
broken  law,  in  order  to  the  redemption  of  the  guilty.  This  bap- 
tism, this  "one  baptism,"  may  form  the  basis  for  John's  baptism; 
but  to  suppose  that  the  Originator  of  the  baptism  by  atoning 
blood  could  enter  personally  or  representatively  into  the  baptism 
of  Jolin,  is  as  absurd  as  to  suppose  that  the  foundation  of  a  house 
can  rest  upon  the  house  which  is  builded  on  it,  or  that  a  fountain 
can  be  supplied  by  the  stream  which  flows  from  it,  or  that  a  rock 
can  enter  into  the  shadow  which  it  casts  for  the  weary.  The 
Lord  Jesus  never  baptized  any  with  water  symbolizing  spiritual 
blessings.  It  was  as  unsuitable  for  the  Dispenser  of  all  spiritual 
blessings  to  do  so,  as  to  give  symbols  of  healing  to  the  blind,  and 
deaf,  and  dumb,  and  lame,  and  sick.  And  it  was  just  as  unsuit- 
able for  him  to  receive  from  John  not  merely  the  symbol  involving 
the  impossibilities  of  repentance  and  remission,  but  the  symbol  of 
any  spiritual  blessing,  he  himself  being  the  source  of  all  spiritual 
good.  But  if  it  were  not  too  grossly  earthy  to  suppose  that  our 
Divine  Sin-bearer  could  go  through  the  fiction  of  confessing  sin, 
declaring  repentance,  and  receiving  remission,  he  would  know, 
and  John  would  know,  and  all  would  know,  that  such  service 


BAPTISM    OF    JESUS    BY    JOHN.  29 

was  no  administration  of  "John's  baptism."  All  who  came  to 
John's  baptism  were  exposed  to,  and  "  warned  to  flee  from  the 
wrath  to  come."  From  what  wrath  to  come  could  Jesus  flee? 
There  is  no  aspect  in  which  the  ministry  (preaching  or  baptism) 
of  John  can  be  considered  which  will  allow  of  the  Coming  One  to 
be  made  subject  to  it.  John  himself  recognizes  this  truth,  and 
promptly  declares  it  when  Jesus  comes  to  him.  And  it  is  not 
until  an  explanation  is  given,  reminding  him  of  the  peculiar  rela- 
tion in  which  they  stand  to  each  other,  and  indicating  the  nature 
of  the  baptism  sought,  that  John's  embarrassment  is  removed. 
This  is  effectually  accomplished  through  those  brief  but  most  sig- 
nificant words — "thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness." 
This  language  cannot  apply  to  the  ritual  baptism  of  John, 
That  was  not  a  thing  of  law.  One  confessing  himself  a  sinner, 
and  fleeing  from  the  wrath  to  come,  could  hardl}'  claim  for  him- 
self the  doing  a  work  of  righteousness.  David  did  not  imagine 
that  he  was  doing  a  work  of  righteousness  when  he  presented 
before  God  "a  broken  heart  and  a  contrite  spirit."  An  act  of 
righteousness  and  godlj^  sorrow  for  sin  do  not  belong  to  the  same 
category.  It  cannot  be  claimed  that  the  Lord  Jesus  was  under 
obligation  to  undergo  this  baptism  as  a  part  of  "all  righteous- 
ness ;"  1.  Because  there  is  no  righteousness  in  it ;  2.  Because 
what  there  is  in  it  is  just  that  which  he  did  not  come  to  do.  He 
did  not  come  to  repent  for  sinners,  nor  to  exercise  faith  for 
sinners.  These  things  do  not  enter  into  that  "  all  righteousness  " 
which  he  came  to  fulfil.  And  he  did  not  come  to  receive  John's 
baptism  ;  which  is  just  as  far  removed  from  the  wondrous  work 
which  he  came  to  do.  These  words  must  be  received  at  their  full, 
normal,  scriptui-al  value.  They  describe  with  divine  brevity,  ful- 
ness, and  force,  the  work  which  the  Mightier  than  John  came  into 
the  world  to  do — "to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  Never  was 
there  a  time  more  suitable  for  its  announcement.  They  are  the 
first  words  of  his  public  life.  To  no  person  could  they  be  more 
suitably  spoken.  The  Forerunner  is  hereby  notified  that  the 
Coming  One  has  met  him.  Nothing  could  be  more  appropriate 
to  the  amazing  mission  which  brought  him  into  our  world,  than 
some  expressive  and  visible  covenant  declaration  and  act.  No 
one  could  share  in  such  inauguration  with  a  fitness  comparable 
with  that  of  his  great  Foi'erunner.  And  to  this  fitness  of  rela- 
tionship reference  is  had  in  the  words — "thus  it  becometh  us  '' — 
"thus,"  by  baptism  ;  "us,"  administered  by  thee,  my  Forerunner, 


30  CHRTSTIC    BAPTISM. 

to  me,  the  Coming  One  proclaimed  by  thee;  "now,"  entering 
upon  my  covenant  work  which  I  now  dechxre  and  am  ready  to 
begin — "  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  Can  there  be,  in  view  of  the 
persons,  the  time,  and  the  circumstances,  any  other  satisfactory 
interpretation  of  these  groat  words  ? 

Stier  (Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  I,  30-33)  recognizes  this  bap- 
tism, although  not  always  with  accurate  discrimination,  as  far  dif- 
ferent from  tliat  of  John's  baptism.  "'For  thus  it  becometh  us 
to  fulfil  all  righteousness.'  First  of  all  we  cannot  but  be  pro- 
foundly impressed  bj*  the  lofty  contrast  between  (his  avowal  of 
righteousness,  and  the  confession  of  sin  of  all  the  others,  who 
came  to  be  baptized.  And  it  is  strange  that  Theologians  in  their 
search  for  testimonies  of  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus,  do  not  find  here 
the  first  and  most  luminous  dictum  probans  from  his  own  mouth. 
This  was  the  decisive  declaration  which  set  John  perfectly  at  rest. 
.  .  .  Here  at  the  very  first  does  tire  Lord  openly  announce  to 
John  :  Placing  myself  in  the  likeness  of  sinners,  taking  their  sins 
upon  me,  I  shall  and  will  fulfil  righteousness  for  them.  .  .  .  This 
baptism  is  truly  and  essentially  the  true  heginning  point  of  that 
Obedience,  the  consummation  of  which,  in  the  death  of  the  Cross 
in  order  to  the  Resurrection,  it  pretypifies;  '//^ws,'  not  herein  nor 
hereby^  is  an  expression  of  comparison,  which  points  forward  to 
the  thing  compared.  This  baptism  is  his  anointing  to  that  sacri- 
fice of  himself  for  sinners  which  now  first  properly  begins.  He 
afterwards  was  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  death,  in  which  he, 
as  the  Lamb  of  God,  bore  our  guilt;  which  was  not  to  him  the 
wages  of  sin,  but  the  highest  meritorious  righteousness  for  us  all. 
...  He  presents  himself,  saying — Behold  I  come  to  do  thy  will ; 
the  Father  responds — This  is  my  beloved  Son  !  This  acceptance 
and  obligation  is  to  him  what  the  confession  of  sin  is  to  the  sinner. 
Therein  our  sins  are  confessed  as  done  away  in  his  righteousness, 
and  the  future  baptism  for  the  true  forgiveness  of  sins,  which 
should  be  ours  by  virtue  of  his  baptism,  is  foreannounced." 

These  extracts  show  a  great  gulf  separating  this  baptism  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  by  John  from  "  the  baptism  of  John." 

Yenema  says :  "  The  water  of  baptism  denotes  tlie  punishing 
justice  of  God.  Lito  this  justice  Christ  was  immersed.  Tliis  is 
the  baptism  of  Ciirist  concerning  which  he  speaks,  Matt.  20  :  22  ; 
and  this  was  represented  by  the  ba[)tism  of  water  which  was  ad- 
ministered to  liim  by  John."  Such  views,  as  just  as  profound, 
preclude  our  accepting  the  barren  and  superficial  conception,  that 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  LORD  JESUS  BY  THE  HOLY  GHOST.   31 

this  baptism  of  Jesus  is  to  be  swallowed  up  iu  myriads  of  like  bap- 
tisms received  by  the  people  of  Jerusalem  and  Judea!  It  is  not 
a  like  baptism.  It  stands  solitary  and  alone.  But  one  could  re- 
ceive it.  In  it  there  is  an  announcement  of  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion and  a  covenant  engagement  by  the  Son  of  God  to  accomplish 
it.  This  announcement  and  assumption  of  covenant  obligation 
the  Father  accepts  and  declares  himself  "  well  pleased."  The 
Holy  Ghost  makes  like  declaration  by  descending  upon  and  bap- 
tizing the  covenanting  Son  for  his  amazing  work  now  assumed  at 
Jordan,  but  "finished  "  only  on  Calvary. 

Bengel  (Matt.  3:15)  speaks  with  characteristic  wisdom  and 
penetration :  "  It  becomes  me,  as  the  principal ;  thee,  as  the  min- 
ister. In  the  mind  of  Jesus  it  might  also  have  this  sense,  '  It 
becomes  me  and  my  Father  that  I  should  fulfil  all  righteousness.' 
This  (all  righteousness)  is  effected  not  by  John  and  Jesus,  but  by 
Jesus  alone,  who  undertook  that  very  thing  in  his  baptism ;  whence 
the  appellation  'baptism  '  is  transferred  also  to  his  passion,  Luke 
12  :  50.  Jesus  uttered  the  words  here  recorded  instead  of  that 
which  others  who  were  baptized,  being  sinners,  confessed  concern- 
ing their  si7is.  Such  a  speech  suited  none  but  the  Messiah  him-^ 
self."  ...  1  John  5:6;  "  He  not  only  undertook,  when  he  came 
to  baptism,  the  task  of  fulfilling  all  righteousness,  Matt.  3:15,  but 
he  also  completed  it  by  pouring  out  his  blood,''''  John  19  :  30.  And 
Ambrose  (IV,  680)  says :  "  It  was  becoming  that  the  precepts  of 
the  Law  which  he  had  established,  he  should  fulfil,  as  he  says  else- 
where, '  I  have  not  come  to  destroy  the  Law,  but  to  fulfil.'  "  Also, 
Hilary  (I,  927)  :  "  All  righteousness  must  be  fulfilled  b}^  him,  by 
whom  onl}'  the  Law  could  be  fulfilled." 

This  baptism  is  a  covenant  "  to  fulfil  all  righteousness." 


John  1  :  32. 

"On  TedEa/iat  to  Uvev/ua  KarajSaivov  djaec  ■KcpicsTephv  ef  ovpavov,  nal  i/ieivev  en' 
avrdv, 

"  I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon 
him."— Jo/in  1  :  32  {Matt.  3  :  10;   Mark  1  :  10;   Luke  3  :  22.) 

BAPTISM    OF    THE    LORD    JESUS    BY    THE    HOLY    GHOST. 

The  term  baptism  is  not  immediately  applied  to  this  transac- 
tion. It  is,  however,  very  clearly  involved  in  the  words  immedi- 
ately following — "  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descend- 
ing, and  remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  6  liar.ri'^wv  Iv  fhsuimrt  'Ayia)J^ 


32  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

This  title,  "  The  Baptizer  by  (iv)  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  predicated  on 
the  previous  personal  baptism  of  our  Lord  by  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
none  other  had  been  or  could  be  (inimitably)  and  therefore  wield- 
ing all  the  power  of  this  Divine  person  in  baptizing  otliers.  But 
apart  from  this  statement  there  is  no  want  of  evidence  for  author- 
izing this  transaction  being  called  a  baptism.  Evidence,  to  excess, 
has  been  furnished  for  the  existence  of  baptisms  where  no  envel- 
opment was  to  be  found  in  fact,  or  could  rationally  be  conceived. 
The  usage,  under  such  circumstances,  being  based  on  a  similarity 
of  condition  with  that  produced  on  a  class  of  bodies  susceptible 
of  being  penetrated,  pervaded,  and  so  receiving  qualit}^  from  some 
enveloping  element.  Therefore  this  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  his  abiding  upon  our  Lord  is  called  a  baptism,  and  not  because 
of  any  irrational  and  impossible  external  envelopment.  That  the 
whole  being  of  "  the  Christ "  was  henceforth  under  the  influence 
of  this  anointing  the  Scriptures  abundantly  testify:  1.  By  declar- 
ing through  the  Forerunner  (John  3  :  34)  that  "  the  Spirit  is  not 
given  by  measure  unto  him,"  and  therefore  the  farther  statement, 
"Jesus  being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  That  such  a  gift  would 
have  a  controlling  influence,  we  are  not  left  to  infer;  but  it  is  ex- 
presslj'  declared  by  John — "  He  whom  God  hath  sent  speaketh 
the  words  of  God,  for  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto 
him."  2.  This  gift  was  as  unlimited  in  continuance  as  it  was  in 
measure — "  I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a  dove 
and  it  abode  upon  him  "  (John  1  :  32).  3.  Under  this  influence 
he  preached — "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he 
hath  anointed  me  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor,  ...  to  preach 
the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.  And  he  began  to  say  unto 
them,  This  day  is  this  Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears  "  (Luke 
4:18,  21);  "God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  power"  (Acts  10:38).  4.  His  miracles  were 
wrought  by  this  power — "  If  I  by  (^v)  the  Spirit  of  God  cast  out 
devils  then  the  kingdom  of  God  has  come  unto  you  "  (Matt.  12  :  28). 
5.  The  offering  up  of  himself  as  the  Lamb  of  God  was  through  the 
same  Spirit — "  Who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself 
without  spot  to  God"  (Heb.  9:  14).  This  offering  was  the  con- 
summation of  that  covenant  assumed  at  his  baptism  by  John  when 
he  engaged  "  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.''  And  it  was  the  trium- 
phant ending  of  that  work  in  loving  sympathy  with  which  the 
Holy  Gliost  descended  and  abode  upon  him  until  the  sacrificial 
offering  was  "  finished." 


BAPTISM    OF    THE    LORD    JESUS    BY    THE    HOLY    GHOST.      33 

It  was  conclusive  evidence  of  the  pervading  and  controlling 
influence  of  a  baptism,  that  the  Saviour  immediately  after  such 
baptism  is  represented  as  being  under  the  full  influence  of  the 
divine  Spirit — "  Then  was  Jesus  led  up  by  {^'■^)  the  Spirit  into  the 
wilderness"  (Luke  4  :  1).  And  when  he  came  out  of  the  wilder- 
ness he  came  invested  with  all  the  singular  potency  of  this  Divine 
agent — ''Jesus  returned  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit"  (Luke  4: 14). 
And  in  this  condition  of  baptism  did  our  most  blessed  Lord  con- 
tinue during  all  the  period  in  which  he  was  engaged  in  accom- 
plishing his  covenant  "to  fulfil  all  righteousness." 

All  must  be  struck  with  the  irreconcilableness  between  this 
baptism  and  the  theorj'.  The  theory  requires  a  dipping ;  where 
is  the  dipping  in  this  baptism  ?  The  theory  requires  a  covering; 
where  is  the  covering  in  this  baptism  ?  The  theory  requires 
momentary  continuance ;  where  is  the  momentariness  in  this  life- 
long baptism  ?  On  the  other  liand,  the  identity  between  the  con- 
clusions reached  in  Classic  baptism,  illustrated  in  Judaic  baptism, 
and  confirmed  by  Johannic  baptism,  and  the  features  of  the  bap- 
tism before  us,  is  obvious.  Here,  as  everywhere,  we  find  the 
presence  of  a  controlling  influence,  a  thorough  change  of  condi- 
tion, and  no  limitation  of  time.  It  is  as  impossible  for  the  theory 
to  expound  the  baptisms  in  the  Bible  or  out  of  the  Bible  as  it  is 
impossible  for  a  sieve  to  hold  water. 

It  is  not  without  practical  value  to  notice  the  harmony  between 
this  baptism  of  our  Lord,  on  entering  upon  his  oflfice  work,  and 
that  baptism  of  the  Apostles  at  Pentecost,  when  entering  upon 
their  office  work.  Both  baptisms  were  by  the  Spirit.  Both  bap- 
tisms were,  in  their  nature,  qualifying  for  office.  Both  baptisms 
were  distinct  from,  while  essentially  related  to  the  "one  baptism." 
Both  baptisms  were  of  life-long  continuance.  Neither  baptism 
was  connected  with  a  water  symbolization.  The  "like  as  a  dove" 
well  betokened  the  Holy  Ghost  and  not  a  particular  gift ;  while 
the  "like  as  of  fire"  tongues,  aptly  set  forth  the  more  specific 
endowments  conferred  upon  the  Apostles.  The  Saviour  was  not 
covered  over  in  the  "like  as  a  dove"  appearance;  nor  were  the 
Apostles  covered  over  in  the  "  like  as  of  fire  "  tongues ;  yet  both 
were  as  much  covered  in  the  one  or  the  other  as  men  and  women 
were  covered  in  the  symbol  water  of  their  baptism. 

While  there  are  harmonies  between  the  baptisms  of  our  Lord 
and  of  his  Apostles  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  there  is  also  diversity 
which  separates  them  measurelessly  and  precludes  the  use  of  the 


34  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

phraseology  ("immersed  in  the  H0I3'  Ghost")  insisted  on  by  tlie 
theory.  The  New  Testament  proffers  to  men  a  "baptism  into  re- 
pentance— into  the  remission  of  sins — into  Christ."  Did  any  one 
ever  imagine  that  if  a  myriad  should  receive  either  of  these  bap- 
tisms tliat  they  would  not  receive  identically  the  same  baptism  ? 
Is  it  not  absurd  to  suppose  that  those  who  should  be  "  baptized 
in  the  Holy  Ghost "  would  receive  diverse  baptisms  ?  And  yet 
the  Lord  Jesus,  the  Apostles,  and  Cornelius,  received  essentially 
diverse  baptisms,  while  all  are  declared  by  the  theory  to  be  alike 
"immersed  in  the  H0I3'  Ghost!"  It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that 
there  is  any  baptism  in  the  Holy  Ghost  taught  in  the  Scriptures, 
but  a  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  leaving  this  Divine  Agent  to 
"  divide  to  each  severall}'  as  he  will." 

Bloomfield,  Acts  10:38,  says:  "'Anointed,'  by  a  metaphor 
taken  from  the  mode  of  inaugurating  kings,  signifies  invested  and 
endued^  namely,  at  his  baptism.  And  in  Ilvsu/iari  'Aycw  xat  Suva/iei 
there  is  a  hendiadys.  The  sense  is.  With  the  powerful  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Rev.  Isaac  Errett  (Campb.),  Christian  Standard  (Campb. 
Bapt.),  Aug.  9,  1813,  thus  acknowledges  a  peculiarity  in  the  bap- 
tism of  Christ :  "  Now,  not  to  speak  of  the  peculiar  design  of  the 
baptism  of  Jesus — as  peculiar  to  himself  as  was  all  else  that  made 
up  his  mediatorial  mission — which  unfits  it  to  set  forth  the  design 
of  baptism  to  a  penitent  sinner."  .... 

This  baptism  is  not  a  dipping,  but  an  abiding  "without  meas- 
ure" of  the  Spirit,  in  order  to  "fulfil  all  righteousness." 


BAPTISM   BY   DRINKING    FROM    A    SYMBOL   CUP. 

Mark  10:  38,  39. 

^vvacds  nielv  to  TTOT^ptov  6  eyw  ttivo)  koI  to  /JdrcTtafia  b  eyu  panTii^ofiai  (ian- 
TiadfjvaL:;  Qi  6s  eIkov  ovtu,  Avvd/ieda.  6  6e  'IrjaovQ  elirev  avTo'ig,  To  fiiv  noTr/ptov 
b  kyu  TTivu^  nleade  /cat  to  (SdnTtajua  b  kyu  (iaTTTi^o/iaij  (ia-rrTindt/aeaOe. 

<•  Can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of  and  be  baptized  with  the  baptism 
that  1  am  baptized  with?  And  they  say  unto  him,  We  can.  And  Jesus 
said  unto  them,  Ye  shall  indeed  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of;  and  with 
the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  withal  shall  ye  be  baptized." 

BAPTISM  INTO  PENAL  DEATH. 

The  theory  which  makes  Christian  baptism  to  consist  in  a  dip- 
ping into  water,  in  the  name  ("  by  the  authority  ")  of  the  Father, 


BAPTISM  INTO  PENAL  DEATH.  35 

the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  appears  to  regard  the  use  of  the 
term  baptism  to  describe  the  transaction  announced  in  this  pas- 
sage as  a  matter  of  rhetoric,  and  applied  somewhat  irregularly  to 
a  case  standing  out  of  the  line  of  true  baptisms,  and  with  which 
as  baptisms  thej'  have  no  concern.  By  such  a  view  the  theory 
shows  itself  (as  uuder  every  other  crucial  test)  to  be  a  pure  error 
from  centre  to  circumference. 

This  baptism,  so  far  from  being  out  of  the  line  of  Bible  bap- 
tisms and  bearing  a  common  title  with  them  e  gratia  only,  is  the 
ver}^  centre  of  all  Bible  baptisms,  and  reflects  upon  them  its  own 
great  claim  to  be  the  "  one  baptism  "  of  the  Scriptures,  in  which 
all  other  baptisms  are  grounded  and  from  which  they  derive  their 
character  and  worth. 

This  baptism  was  singularly  Divine.  The  Subject  of  the  bap- 
tism was  God  the  Son,  manifest  in  the  flesh  to  this  very  end  ;  the 
Upholder  of  the  Divine-human  Subject  of  this  unutterable  baptism 
was  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  Sj^mpathizer  and  Comforter,  descend- 
ing and  abiding  upon  him  ;  and  the  Executor  of  this  baptism  is 
God  the  Father,  who  holds  the  cup  full  of  penal  woe  to  the  lips 
of  his  "forsaken"  (Matt.  27  :  4G)  but  "beloved  Son."  As  that 
cup  is  drunk  "the  just  dies  for  the  unjust" — baptized  into  jjenal 
and  thus  made  atoning  death. 

In  this  baptism  are  grounded  all  the  typical  baptisms  of  Judaism 
with  their  power  for  ceremonial  purification;  the  baptism  of  John 
with  its  spiritual  but  imperfectly  unfolded  baptism  "  into  repent- 
ance " — "  into  the  remission  of  sins  ;"  the  fully  developed  bap- 
tism of  Christianity  "into  Christ" — "  into  liis  death;"  and  the 
remoter,  yet  from  the  beginning  purposed,  baptism  of  all  the 
redeemed  "  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." 
But  among  all  these  baptisms  we  look  in  vain,  in  the  Bible  or  out 
of  the  Bible,  for  that  baptism  bearing  the  self-contradicting  title — 
"dipping  into  water;"  this  can  be  found  only  in  the  theory.  Its 
ambiguous  life  can  find  nurture  in  no  other  atmosphere. 

Although  this  baptism  is  stated  absolutely,  without  any  defining 
adjuncts,  still  there  has  been  a  universal  agreement  in  referring 
it  to  the  atoning  death  and  fulfilment  of  all  righteousness,  by  the 
Lord  Jesus. 

Tlie  evidence  in  support  of  this  conclusion  is  abundant: 
1.  There  is  a  suggestion  of  diflSculty  and  suffering.  This  is 
plainh'  involved  in  the  questions,  "  Can  ye  drink  ?"  "  Can  ye  be 
baptized?"     A  Cup  may  be  used  to  express  what  is  productive 


36  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  gladness  and  life,  but  here  evidently  it  points  to  sorrow,  if  not 
to  death.  What  gives  character  to  the  contents  of  the  cup,  must 
give  character  to  the  baptism  also.  2.  Allusion  to  this  same 
baptism,  on  another  occasion,  confirms  this  view ;  Luke  12:50, 
"  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  am  I  straitened 
until  it  be  accomplished."  This  language  is  indicative  of  distress 
and  oppression.  It  shows,  also,  that  the  baptism  was  exclusive 
in  its  character,  beai-ing  only  on  the  Saviour  himself.  And  we 
are  farther  led  to  the  conviction  that  this  baptism  was  familiar  to 
his  mind,  and  that  he  was  now  passing  through  it  while  on  his 
way  to  Calvary,  where  it  was  to  be  "finished."  3.  The  context 
develops  suffering  and  death  distinctly;  Mark  10:. 3-3,  34,  "The 
Son  of  man  shall  be  delivered  unto  the  chief  priests  and  unto 
the  scribes ;  and  they  shall  condemn  him  to  death,  and  shall 
deliver  him  to  the  Gentiles  :  And  they  shall  mock  him,  and 
scourge  him,  and  shall  spit  upon  him,  and  shall  kill  him.''''  Matt. 
20 :  28,  "  The  Son  of  man  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many."  4.  Parallel  passages  abound  in  which  this  baptism,  in 
its  elements  of  suffering  and  death,  is  brought  to  view ;  Matt. 
16:21,  "Jesus  began  to  show  to  his  disciples,  that  he  must  go 
unto  Jerusalem  and  suffer  many  things  of  the  elders,  and  chief 
priests,  and  scribes,  aiid  be  killed;^'  Matt.  17:22,  "Jesus  said 
unto  them,  The  Son  of  man  shall  be  betrayed  into  the  hands  of 
men  ;  and  they  shall  kill  him;  "  Luke  9  :  22,  "Jesus  said,  The  Son 
of  man  must  suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected  by  the  elders, 
and  chief  priests,  and  scribes,  and  be  slain;"  Luke  9  :  30,  "  Moses 
and  Elias  talked  with  Jesus  amid  the  glory  of  the  Transfiguration 
of  his  decease  which  he  should  accomplish  at  Jerusalem."  These 
and  like  passages  show  unmistakably  the  nature  of  this  cup  and 
its  baptism.  5.  The  repeated  use  of  the  same  figure  as  the  bap- 
tism draws  nigh  its  accomplishment,  removes  all  doubt ;  Matt. 
26  :  39,  "  0  my  Father,  if  it  be  possible  let  this  cup  pass  from 
me ; "  v.  42,  "  0  my  Father,  if  this  cup  may  not  pass  from  me 
except  I  drink  it,  thy  will  be  done  ; "  Luke  22  :  44,  "  And  being 
in  an  agony  he  pra^^ed  more  earnestly ;  and  his  sweat  was  as  it 
were  great  drops  of  blood  falling  down  to  the  ground."  At  a 
later  hour  of  the  same  night  he  says :  "  The  cup  which  my 
Father  hath  given  me  shall  I  not  drink  it  ?  "  Jolin  18:11.  That 
CUP  was  at  his  lips,  upturned  by  his  Father's  hand,  the  last  drop 
of  penal  woe  passing  from  its  brim  when  in  untold  woe  he  cried, 


BAPTISM  INTO  PENAL  DEATH.  37 

"Eli!  Eli  I  lama  sabachthani?"  and  gave  up  the  ghost,  bap- 
tized into  death  I 

This  baptism  of  course  does  not  suit  the  theory.  What  true 
baptism  ever  did  ?  The  Cup  (that  onlj'  source  of  his  baptismal 
sorrows  recognized  by  our  Lord)  must  be  got  rid  of.  It  is  too 
small  for  the  theory.  More,  shall  I  say,  more  penal  woe  than  the 
Father  could  put  into  that  Cup  for  the  baptism  into  death  of  his 
beloved  Son  must  be  secured  ?  no,  not  more  penal  woe,  but  more 
Water.  So  Dr.  Carson  says:  "This  figure  represents  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  as  an  immersion  in  water"  (1).  It  is  in  vain  to 
quote  the  poetry  of  David  iu  vindication  of  a  "  dipping."  What 
is  there  of  a  "  dipping"  in  Ps.  42  :  7 — "Deep  calleth  unto  deep  at 
the  noise  of  thy  water-spouts ;  all  thy  waves  and  thy  billows  are 
gone  over  me;"  or  Ps.  69:1,  2  —  "Save  me,  0  God;  for  the 
waters  are  come  in  unto  ray  soul.  I  sink  in  deep  mire,  where 
there  is  no  standing ;  I  am  come  into  deep  waters,  where  the 
floods  overflow  me  ; "  or  Ps.  88  :  6,  t — "  Thou  hast  laid  me  in  the 
lowest  pit,  in  darkness,  in  the  deeps.  Thy  wrath  lieth  hard  upon 
me,  and  thou  hast  afflicted  me  with  all  thy  waves."  To  make  a 
"  dipping"  the  measure  of  these  poetical  outbursts  is  only  to  give 
another  illustration  of  the  truth  that  the  sublime  and  the  ridic- 
ulous are  separated  but  by  a  single  step.  A  dipping  with  its 
essential  triviality  constitutes  the  baptism  of  the  theory.  Neither 
dipping  nor  triviality  ever  made  up  any  true  baptism.  Sprink- 
lings and  pourings  have,  as  baptisms,  been  abundantly  ridiculed. 
Whenever  we  sa}^,  that  the  conception  in  a  baptism  is  measured 
in  its  height  and  depth  and  breadth  by  a  sprinkling  or  a  pouring, 
we  will  not  object  to  any  who  will,  saying  ne  teneatis  visum;  but 
when  we  say  that  a  certain  class  of  baptisms  (Jewish)  may  be 
effected  by  a  sprinkling  or  a  pouring,  or  when  we  say  that  another 
class  of  baptisms  (Christian)  may  be  symbolized  as  to  their  spirit- 
ually purifying  character,  by  a  sprinkling  or  a  pouring,  and  are 
so  ordained  of  God  to  be  ritually  celebrated,  then  we  give  kindly 
notice  to  all  indulgers  in  merriment,  that  "As  the  crackling  of 
thorns  under  a  pot,  so  is  the  laughter  of  the  man  who  is  not  a 
son  of  Solomon." 

It  is  not  a  mark  of  interpretative  wisdom  to  take  the  glowing 
poetical  forms  of  the  Psalms  and  incorporate  them  in  the  calmer 
pi'osaic  statements  of  the  Gospels.  Nothing  could  more  justly 
and  more  vividly  delineate  persistent  and  oppressive  sorrows  than 
the  language  of  David ;  but  there  is  no  approach  to  any  such 


38  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

picturing  by  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  or  John,  when  they  speak  of 
the  sutferings  of  their  Lord.  David  might  fitly  so  write  as  a  poet. 
The  writers  of  the  gospels  were  not  poets ;  they  were  historians. 
There  is  neither  statement  nor  implication  in  any  language  used 
by  them  of  "  waves,"  "  billows,"  "  water-spouts,"  or  "  waters." 
The  unutterable  woes  of  the  Redeemer  of  a  lost  world  are  ex- 
pressed under  the  simplest  and  quietest  of  figures,  the  drinking 
from  a  cup,  while  the  result  of  that  drinking  penetrating  and 
pervading  his  whole  being  "even  unto  death,"  is  expressed  as  a 
baptisma;  a  term  never  employed  either  in  profane  or  sacred 
writings  to  express  a  covering  in  water.  It  would  be  a  "blunder  " 
perhaps  "  worse  than  a  crime  "  to  displace  the  sublimely  simple 
language  of  the  Gospels  in  order  to  make  room  for  the  "waves," 
and  "billows,"  and  "  watei'-spouts  "  of  the  Psalms,  so  illy  accord- 
ant with  the  narrative  of  Gethsemane  and  the  calmly  self-con- 
tained spirit  of  the  Lamb  of  God  in  his  death  hour.  But  if  such 
things  should  be  introduced,  they  will  onl}^  serve  to  make  (under 
the  shadow  of  this  cross  baptism)  more  boldly  erroneous  the 
notion,  that  a  dipping  can  be  a  baptism. 

PATRISTIC   BLOOD   BAPTISM. 

'  Patristic  writers  speak  of  baptisms  by  blood  and  by  water, 
equall}^,  as  baptisms.  The  differences  as  to  the  quantity,  or  as  to 
the  manner  of  using  the  blood  or  the  water,  are  never  considered  as 
having  anything  to  do  with  the  inatter.  A  true  baptism  because 
of  a  dipping  ,•  a  false  baptism  because  of  no  dipping ;  are  things 
unheard  of.  The  origin  and  coequal  value  of  these  baptisms  is 
thus  declared  by  a  writer  in  Tertull.  Ill,  1198  :  "  '  I  have  another 
baptism  to  be  baptized  with'  (Luke  12:50);  'Can  ye  drink  the 
cup  which  I  drink ;  or  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am 
baptized  with'  (Mark  10:38)?  quod  sciret  homines  non  solum 
aqua,  verum,  etiam  sanguine  suo  proprio  habere  baptizari :  ita  ut 
et  solo  hoc  Baptismate  baptizati  fidem  integram  et  dignatiouem 
sinceram  lavacri  possint  adipisci  et  utroque  modo  baptizari,  asque 
tamen  unum,  baptisma  solutis  et  honoris  pariter  et  aequaliter 
consequi.  Quod  enim  dictum  est  a  Domino,  'I  have  another  bap- 
tism to  be  baptized  with  ; '  hoc  in  loco  non  ut  secundum  Baptisma, 
ac  si  sint  duo  Baptismata,  significat,  sed  alterius  quoque  specici 
Baptisma  ad  eamdem  salutem  concurrens  donatum  nobis  esse 
demonstrat.   Because  he  would  teach  men  to  be  baptized  not  only 


PATRISTIC    BLOOD    BAPTISM.  39 

by  water,  but,  also,  by  their  own  blood :  so  that  baptized  by  this 
baptism  only  they  may  secure  a  true  faith  and  pure  cleansing, 
and  baptized  in  the  one  way  or  in  the  other  equally  to  secure  one 
baptism  of  salvation  and  honor.  Because  the  Lord  says,  '  I  have 
another  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,'  he  does  not  mean  a  second 
baptism,  as  though  there  may  be  two  baptisms,  but  he  shows  that 
Baptism  has  been  conferred  upon  us  issuing,  under  the  one 
species  or  the  other,  in  the  same  salvation."  This  passage  (as 
well  as  other  writings  in  these  days)  shows,  that  a  dipping  bap- 
tism was  an  unknown  baptism,  and  blood  baptism  and  water 
baptism  are  declared  to  be  "one  baptism"  and  not  two  baptisms. 
But  this  latter  statement  is  an  absolute  falsehood  stated  in  the 
most  naked  terms,  if  baptism  is  a  dipping. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  440:  "If  any  one  should  not  receive  bap- 
tism, he  has  not  salvation,  except  martyrs  onl^^,  who  may  receive 
the  kingdom  even  without  the  water.  For  the  Saviour  who  re- 
deemed the  world  by  the  cross,  being  wounded  in  the  side,  poured 
out  blood  and  water ;  that  some  in  times  of  peace  (ew  udan  fia-Kriq- 
dwacv,  ol  ds  ev  xatpoiq  dcajy/xaJv  iv  ouecotq  acfxaffi  ptaizTiaOwaY)  might  be 
baptized  with  water,  but  others  in  times  of  persecution,  might  be 
baptized  with  their  own  blood.  For  the  Saviour  called  martyr- 
dom baptism,  saying,  •  Can  yQ  drink  the  cup  that  I  drink  V  "  In 
this  baptism,  as  in  the  preceding,  whatever  diversity  there  may 
be  in  "water"  and  "blood"  as  "species,"  and  whatever  diversity 
there  may  be  in  quantity  of  the  one  or  the  other,  and  whatever 
diversity  there  may  be  in  the  application  of  either  to  the  body, 
their  applicability  as  agencies  in  baptism  is  of  Divine  authority ; 
each  equally  effects  a  baptism,  and  each  effects  identically  the 
same  baptism.  It  is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  it  be  iv  uda-c 
or  iv  aciiari;  in  either  case  the  issue  is  eiq  a^zaiv  aij.a.fjrt.<nv  as  the 
"  ONE  BAPTISM." 

Cyprian,  1123,  4:  "But  if  (Baptisma  publicae  confessionis  et 
sanguinis)  the  Baptism  of  public  confession  and  of  blood  cannot 
profit  a  heretic  to  salvation,  because  salvation  is  not  out  of  the 
Church,  by  how  much  more  will  it  not  profit  him,  if  in  the  dens 
and  caves  of  robbers  (adulters  aquae  contagione  tinctus)  he  be 
contaminated  with  the  pollution  of  impure  water.  .  .  .  They,  c*ate- 
chumens  (baptizentur  gloriosissimo  et  maximo  sanguinis  bap- 
tismo),  may  be  baptized  by  that  most  illustrious  and  greatest 
baptism  of  blood  concerning  which  the  Lord  said,  that  he  had 
another  baptism  to  be  baptized  with." 


40  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Augustine,  IX,  2*76  :  Petilianus  rebuts  the  charge  of  baptizing 
twice,  by  sajang,  that  those  who  put  them  to  death  as  heretics 
baptize  twice  also,  because  they  in  slaying  them  baptize  them  by 
their  blood,  and  adds,  "  But  so  the  Saviour  himself,  also,  having 
been  first  baptized  by  John,  declared  that  he  must  be  baptized  a 
second  time  (non  jam  aqua,  nee  spiritu,  sed  sanguinis  baptismo, 
cruce  passionis)  not  now  by  water,  nor  by  Spirit,  but  by  the  bap- 
tism of  blood,  by  the  Cross  of  his  passion;  as  it  is  written — 'and 
with  the  baptism  with  which  I  am  baptized  ' — Blush !  blush  !  O 
persecutors,  ye  make  martyrs  like  unto  Christ  (quos  post  aquam 
veri  baptismatis  sanguis  baptista  perfundit)  whom  after  the  water 
of  true  baptism,  baptizing  blood  sprinkles."  Augustine  replies: 
"  If  all  who  are  slain  are  baptized  b}'  their  blood,  all  robbers,  un- 
just, accursed,  and  impious  persons  who  are  put  to  death,  must 
be  reckoned  martyrs,  because  the^^  are  baptized  b}'  their  own 
blood.  But  if  none  are  baptized  by  their  own  blood,  but  those 
who  are  slain  for  righteousness,  '  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  '  (Matt.  5  :  10).  .  .  .  If  you  make  schism  j'ou  are  impious; 
if  you  are  impious  you  will  die  as  a  sacrilegious  person  punished 
for  impiety ;  if  you  die  as  a  sacrilegious  person  how  are  3'ou  bap- 
tized with  your  blood  ?  " 

It  will  be  observed,  that  it  never  enters  into  the  mind,  much 
less  into  the  discussion  between  Petilianus  and  Augustine,  to  in- 
quire into  the  quantity  of  blood  in  a  man's  veins  to  determine 
whether  a  robber  or  a  martyr  could  be  dipped  into  it.  These 
men  did  not  deal  in  nor  conceive  of  the  rhetorical  elegance  by 
which  a  lake  was  to  be  put  into  the  blood  of  a  frog,  or  a  dying 
man  to  be  dipped  into  his  own  blood.  It  is  not  onh'^  rhetorical 
nonsense  to  talk  of  a  figurative  dij^ping  of  a  man  into  his  own 
blood,  but  it  is  a  logical  impertinence  to  raise  such  a  question  in 
these  blood  baptisms.  The  blood  is  not  the  receptive  element, 
but  the  agency.  And  the  same  is  true  of  the  water  used  in  bap- 
tism by  water ;  no  matter  what  may  be  the  quantity  of  the  water 
or  what  may  be  the  manner  of  the  use,  the  water  is  used  as  an 
AGENCY.  If  the  water  be  used  by  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  cover- 
ing the  whole  body,  the  baptism  is  no  more  effected  b}'  it  than  in 
the  case  of  a  blood  l)aptism  when  the  crimson  current  flows 
through  wounds  made  in  the  hands  by  driven  nails,  or  through 
the  broader  wound  made  by  the  spear  cleaving  the  heart,  or  from 
spouting  arteries  when  the  head  is  stricken  from  the  bod}'.  There 
is  no  baptism  in  the  direction  toward  which  the  face  of  the  theory 


PATRISTIC    BLOOD    BAPTISM.  41 

is  "set  as  a  flint."  But  one  must  be  liacl.  And  so  one  is  made, 
by  the  most  marvellous  rhetoric,  in  the  martyr's  blood  ;  and  again 
in  the  water,  b^^  a  scarcely  less  remarkable  philology. 

These  baptisms  were  to  these  Greek  writers  not  rhetorical  fic- 
tions, but  most  practical  realities,  thoroughly  changing  the  con- 
dition of  the  soul.  Tliere  is  a  vis  baptismatis  in  martyr  blood, 
with  which  quantity  has  nothing  to  do,  which  effects  the  baptism. 
It  is  the  absence  of  this,  and  not  because  of  diminished  quantity, 
which  leaves  the  impious  unbaptized. 

Origen,  II,  980  :  "  Christ,  whom  we  follow,  shed  his  blood  for 
our  redemption,  that  we  ma}^  depart  washed  bj'  our  own  blood 
(Baptisma  euim  sanguinis  solum  est  quod  nos  puriores  reddat, 
quam  aquse  baptismus  redidit).  For  it  is  the  Baptism  of  blood 
only  which  can  make  us  more  pure  than  the  baptism  of  water  has 
made  us.  And  this  I  do  not  assume,  but  the  Scripture  declares, 
the  Lord  saying  to  his  disciples,  '  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized 
with  that  ye  know  not  of.  And  how  am  I  straitened  until  it  be 
accomplished.'  You  see,  therefore  (quia  profusionem  sanguinis 
sui  baptisma  nominavit),  that  he  called  the  shedding  of  his  blood 
baptism.  If  God  should  grant  to  me  that  I  might  be  washed  by 
my  own  blood  so  that  I  might  receive  a  second  baptism,  dying 
for  Christ,  I  would  leave  this  world  satisfied." 

Origen  longed  for  a  blood  baptism  as  more  perfect  than  a  water 
baptism.  Covering,  then,  did  not  enter  into  his  idea  of  a  bap- 
tism ;  for  in  the  water  baptism  of  his  day  there  was  a  covering, 
while  in  blood  baptism  there  was  none ;  and  yet  the  latter  was  a 
more  perfect  baptism  than  the  former.  Again,  the  profusio  san- 
guinis hy  our  crucified  Lord,  Origen  declares  to  be  the  baptisma 
he  was  to  endure.  Then  it  was  not  an  "  immersion  in  water  "  as 
some  would  have  us  believe.  This  most  learned  Greek  also  be- 
lieved that  the  death  baptism  of  our  most  blessed  Lord  was  "the 
perfect  Baptism" — ru  rsXlcov  (idnnaixa — "perfect,"  not.  by  some 
marvellous  introduction  of  water,  but — Sia  rdu  ixoarrjptdu  ndOoq — as 
effected  "  through  his  mysterious  passion."  Yes ;  it  was  the 
mystery  of  his  passion  which  perfected  the  baptism.  It  was  "the 
mystery  of  the  passion  "  which  filled  that  Cup  which  the  Father 
gave  him.  And  floating  all  through  the  mystery  of  that  passion 
was  death — and  in  that  death,  the  death  of  death  ! 

Origen,  I,  600  :  "  Let  us  remember  our  transgressions ;  and 
that  remission  of  sins  cannot  be  received  without  baptism  ;  and 
that  it  is  not  possible  according  to  gospel  laws  to  be  baptized 


42  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

again  by  water  and  spirit  into  the  remission  of  sins  {aoOt:;  flar^Ti- 
aafjOat  uSan  xat  nveup-arc  ££?  anptaiv  diJ.apTrjfj.dTU}'^)^  and  that  tlie  bap- 
tism of  martyrdom  is  given  to  us  ;  for  so  it  is  called  as  is  evident — 
'Can  36  drink  the  cup  which  I  drink?'  or  'Be  baptized  with  the 
baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with?'  Elsewhere  it  is  also  said, 
'  1  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with.'  " 

In  this  [)assage  we  have  the  agencies  "Water  and  Spirit  "  {odazi 
xal  n'^sn/iarc)  stated  most  clearly  by  the  instrumental  Dative,  and 
the  ideal  element  (el<;  u<I'£<tcv  d/iapriw^)  no  less  clearly  stated.  There 
is  no  room  left  for  doubt  eitlier  as  to  the  nature  of  the  baptism, 
or  as  to  the  relation  of  the  elements  to  each  other.  This  baptism 
(S(5aT£  xai  ll'^sbixart  elt;  awstrcw  d/j.apTifj/j.d-wv)  cannot  be  repeated,  but 
another  baptism  {ftd-ntriia  ro  -oo  paprr/piou)  which  is  {aip-a-i  dz 
a(f£(nv  diJ.apzriiJ.dTUJv)  "the  baptism .  of  martyrdom,"  which  is  "by 
blood  into  the  remission  of  sins."  These  agencies  differ;  in  the 
one  case  we  have  vSari.  xai  Il'^sOpa-i ;  in  the  other  we  have  aqian; 
but  the  baptism  effected  in  the  one  case  or  the  other,  is  identicall}^ 
the  same — dq  acpeaiv  dp-apTTjiidriuv.  It  is  essential  to  understand 
the  great  diversity^  both  in  nature  and  form,  of  the  agencies  recog- 
nized by  these  writers,  as  well  as  the  perfect  unity  of  the  haptiam 
effected  by  them. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  Orat.  xsxix:  "I  know  a  fourtli  baptism 

(jSaTZTCir/j.//.  TO  did   ij.aprupiou  y.a\  at/iaro:;,  6  y.fxi  auT()<;  Xptazoq   ijSa-ri'^eTa) 

that  through  martyrdom  and  blood,  with  which  Christ  himself 
was  baptized,  and  much  more  sacred  than  the  others,  because  it 
is  not  defiled  by  any  subsequent  pollution."  Attention  is  again 
called  to  what  is  so  vital  in  the  interpretation  of  these  baptisms, 
to  the  agency  as  expressed  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner  by 
the  Genitive  did. 

Athanasius,  Qusest.  ad  Antioch.  Ixxii :  "  God  hath  granted  to 
the  nature  of  man  three  baptisms  purifying  from  all  manner  of 
sin  ;  I  refer  to  that  (ro  uda-o-:,  xai  -dkiv  zu  did  papzupiaq  rou  idioo 
dc/jiazoq,  xai  rpizov  zu  did  daxpvwv)  which  is  through  water,  and  again 
that  which  is  through  our  own  martyr  blood,  and  third,  that  which 
is  through  tears."  Another  agency  ("  tears  ")  is  here  added  to 
"  martyr  blood  "  as  divinely  appointed  and  made  divinely  compe- 
tent, equally  with  "  water,"  to  baptize  "  into  the  remission  of 
sins."  Some,  misunderstanding  the  relation  of  "  tears  "  to  the 
baptism,  would  subject  them  to  hyperl)olic  inflation  until  a  pool 
deep  enough  to  receive  the  penitent  should  be  constructed.  This 
task  is  as  gratuitous  as  it  is  extravagant.     The  "  tears  "  are  the 


CALVARY    BAPTISM    AND    MARTYR    BAPTISM.  43 

agency,  not  the  receiving  element,  in  this  baptism.  The  "  water  " 
used  in  the  ordinary  ecclesiastical  baptism  occupies  precisely  the 
same  relation  to  baptism.  It  is  no  more  the  receiving  element 
than  is  martyr  blood  and  penitential  tears ;  but  like  them  is  an 
agency  possessed  of  the  vis  baptismatis  which  baptizes  {h<;  cupmw 
dimpTtajv)  into  THE  REMISSION  OP  SINS.  It  is  true,  that  "  water " 
being  more  abundant  than  "  blood,"  or  "  tears,"  there  was  no 
need  of  hyperbole  to  find  enough  of  it  to  cover  the  whole  body ; 
and  the  body  was  covered.  But  this  covering  of  the  bod}'  was 
not  the  end  sought ;  but  only  a  means  to  that  end.  And  in  order 
that  the  means  might  have  fuller  development  of  its  power  all 
clothing  was  taken  from  the  body.  The  idea  that  these  men  who 
baptized  men  and  women  naked  believed  that  baptism  was  "  a 
dii>i3ing  into  water  "  is  on  its  face  absurd,  as  well  as  in  absolute 
contradiction  to  their  statement,  that  baptism  is  Si  udo.zoq — di  aqia- 
roq — dia  daxpbcov  The  water  was  believed  by  them  to  be  an  agenc}' ; 
and  that  agency  was  believed  to  operate  more  properly  and  more 
effectively  on  the  naked  body;  and  hence  the  violence  to  natural 
modesty  and  Christian  decency  in  order  to  secure  an  assured 
baptism  {dq  aipzaiv  aimprtuyv)  into  the  remission  of  sins. 

CALVARY  BAPTISM  AND  MARTYR  BAPTISM. 

While  the  baptism  by  martyr  blood  is  grounded  in  the  blood 
shed  by  Christ  on  the  Cross,  we  are  not  to  supijose  that  these 
baptisms  were  believed  to  be  of  the  same  precise  nature.  The 
likeness  is  exhausted  in  a  common  purifying  charactei-.  Martyr 
baptism  was  to  purif}^  the  martyr.  The  baptism  of  Christ  was  the 
sacrificial  death  of  "the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins 
of  the  world."  So,  John  of  Damascus  speaks  of  (7o  ISdnrtdfia  81 
aiiJ.aruq  xat  jiaprupiou  6  y.a\  6  Xptaroq  unep  ijtuuv  i[iaTZTi(!n-ti)  "  The 
baptism  through  blood  and  martyrdom  with  which  Christ  was  bap- 
tized for  us."  Here  is  declared  the  vicarious  character  of  the 
Saviour's  baptism  "  by  the  Cross  of  his  passion."  And  it  was  by 
virtue  of  the  atoning  blood  shed  in  that  passion,  constituting  a 
baptism  into  penal  death  under  the  demand  of  broken  Law,  which 
constituted  martyr  blood  a  baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins. 
Thus  the  words  of  the  loving  Redeemer  were  verified,  and  the 
disciples  became  partakers  of  the  baptism  of  their  Lord — "  bap- 
tized with  the  baptism  with  which  he  was  baptized."  "  Without 
the  shedding  of  blood  "  (not  of  any  blood,  not  of  martyr  blood, 


44  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

but  of  atoning  blood)  "  there  is  no  remission  of  sins."  "  He  who 
knew  no  sin  was  made  sin  for  us,  that  we  might  be  made  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  him."  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  that 
taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world."  "  This  cup  is  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  my  blood  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
These  passages  and  a  thousand  others  are  steeped  in  this  blood 
baptism  of  the  Lamb.  No  wonder  that  he  should  exclaim  as  he 
presses  on  toward  this  baptism  and  through  this  baptism — "  How 
am  I  straitened  until  it  be  finished." 

Origen,  IV,  1384,  in  commenting  on  Mark  10:38,  speaks  in- 
structively on  martyr  baptism.  He  sa^'s :  "  Martyrdom  has  a 
twofold  significance,  of  which  the  one  is  called  {izoryipiDv  Gcozrjpioo) 
the  cup  of  salvation,  the  other  baptism  (j3d7:TC(T/j.a) ;  so  far  as  one 
bears  suflferings,  a  cup  is  drunk  by  him  who  bears  whatever  is 
brought  upon  him,  enduring  and  as  it  were  drinking  sorrows, 
neither  repelling  nor  rejecting  and  vomiting  them  out ;  but  as 
he  who  bears  these  things  obtains  the  remission  of  sins,  it  is  a 
baptism.''^  In  this  indication  of  the  application  of  the  terms 
"Cup"  and  "Baptism"  to  martyi-dom,  Origen  speaks  in  entire 
harmony  with  classic  writers  with  whom  baptism  by  drinking  from 
a  cup  was  one  of  the  most  common  forms  of  baptism. 


CUP   BAPTISM. 


Matt.  20:22. 


Avvaade  ttleIv  to  norypiov  b  eyu  /leXXu  niveiv^ 
"  Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup  that  I  shall  drink  of?" 

Luke  12 :  50. 

HdTTTia/ia  6e  ix'^  ^airrcadf/vai,  Kal  Trtjf  avvexofiac  twf  otov  reXeady. 
"  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with;  and  how  am  I  straitened  until  it  be 

finished." 

Matthew,  according  to  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  speaks  only  of 
the  Cup  to  be  drunk;  while  Luke  (in  another  connection  how- 
ever) speaks  only  of  the  baptism  to  be  received.  Mark,  as  we 
have  seen,  conjoins  the  Cup  and  the  Baptism.  In  other  words, 
Matthew  includes  in  the  Cu})  the  unstated  eftect  of  drinking  that 
Cup,  and  Luke,  reversely,  by  stating  the  Baptism  would  indicate 
the  Cup  causative  of  that  Baptism.     Mark  makes  express  state- 


CUP    BAPTISM.  45 

merit  both  of  the  Cup  and  of  the  Baptism,  of  the  cause  and  of 
the  effect. 

Dr.  Carson  objects  to  a  remark  of  Mr.  Ewing  of  Glasgow — 
"There  is  perhaps  a  more  intimate  connection  between  a  'cup' 
and  a  'baptism'  as  belonging  to  one  allusion,  than  some  readers 
of  Scripture  have  as  yet  remarked,  as   shown  b}'  Matt.  20  :  22, 
&c."     Dr.  Carson  (p.  117)  says:  "These  figures  both  respect  o/ie 
object,  but  they  have  not,  as  Mr.  Ewing  asserts,  0)ie  allusion. 
They  are  figures  as  independent  and  distinct,  as  if  one  of  them 
was  found  in  Genesis,  and  the  other  in  Revelation.    One  of  them 
represents  the   suflTerings  of  Christ  as  a  cup  of  bitterness  or 
poison,  which  he  must  drink;  the  other  represents  the  same  suf- 
ferings as  an  immersion  in  water."     Here  arises  the  question. 
What  is  meant  b}'  "an  immersion  in  water"?     The  error  of  the 
theory  is  shown  most  clearly  by  the  loose  and  inconsistent  use 
which  it  makes  of  its  own  select  terms.     Does  "  an  immersion  in 
water"  mean  a  dipping  in  water?     Then  the  phrase  is  as  incom- 
petent to  express  intense  suffering,  much  less  atoning  suffering, 
as  any  that  could  well  be  invented.     Does  it  mean  "an  immer- 
sion in  water"  up  to  the  chin?     How  does  that  express  suflfer- 
ing  ?     Does  it  mean  an  entire  covering  in  water  ?     Then  we  have 
an  expression  not  of  suffering  but  of  death  ;  and  how  does  that 
accord  with  a  "  dipping  "  ?     The  whole  subject  of  baptisms  is,  in 
every  aspect,  unmanageable  by  the  theor3^     Di*.  Carson   adds: 
"When  the  Psalmist  says,  'The  Lord  God  is  a  sun  and  shield,' 
both  the  figures  represent  the  same  object,  but  the}^  have  a  sep- 
arate and  altogether  different  allusion.     The  sun  is  one  emblem,  a 
shield  is  another."     This  is  very  true ;  and  because  it  is  true  proves 
Dr.  Carson  to  be  in  error.     The  sun  and  the  shield  are  diverse  in 
nature,  and  must  in  figure  represent  diverse  things.     They  do 
so  here ;  they  represent  essentially  diverse  relations  in  which  the 
Lord  God  stands  toward  his  people.     According  to  Dr.  Carson 
these  diverse  things  should  be  taken  to  express  precisel}''  the 
same  thing.     For  he  declares  that  while  a  Cup  and  a  baptism  are 
as  distinct  from  each  other  as  is  Genesis  from  Revelation,  yet 
they  represent  precisely  the  same  thing,  namely,  "  the  same  suf- 
ferings."   It  is  irrational  to  suppose  that  a  drinking  and  a  dipping 
would  be  used  in  the  same  sentence  to  express  precisely  the  same 
thing.     Besides,  this  interpretation  fails  to  meet  the  breadth  of 
the  unfigured  and  expository  language  of  our  Lord.     In  the  con- 
text immediately  preceding  the  cup  and  the  baptism  of  Mark  we 


46  »  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

are  told  :  "  And  he  took  again  the  twelve,  and  began  to  tell  them 
what  things  should  happen  unto  him,  saying,  Behold,  we  go  up 
to  Jerusalem ;  and  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  delivered  unto  the 
chief  priests,  and  unto  the  scribes ;  and  they  shall  condemn  him 
to  death,  and  shall  deliver  him  to  the  Gentiles :  and  they  shall 
mock  him,  and  shall  scourge  him,  and  shall  spit  upon  him,  and 
shall  kill  him."  And  again  (Matt.  16:21),  "  Jesus  began  to  show 
unto  his  disciples,  that  he  must  go  unto  Jerusalem  and  suffer 
many  things  of  the  elders,  and  chief  priests,  and  scribes,  and  be 
killed  ;  "  (Luke  9  :  22),  "  The  Son  of  man  must  suffer  many  things, 
and  be  rejected  b}'  the  elders,  and  chief  priests,  and  scribes,  ayid 
he  slainy  And  in  the  context  (v.  28)  immediately  following  the 
announcement  by  Matthew  of  the  cup  to  be  drunk,  our  Lord  saj^s, 
"  The  Son  of  man  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many." 
Thus  in  all  these  prophetic  teachings  death  stands  out  in  the 
boldest  relief  as  the  great  fact,  the  one  momentous  and  essential 
result  in  which  all  antecedent  sufferings  issue.  But  "death"  is 
neither  in  the  cup  nor  in  the  baptism  of  Dr.  Carson — "the  cup 
represents  the  sufferings  of  Christ,"  baptism  "  represents  the 
same  sufferings."  That  is  to  say,  the  ver}'  essence  of  this  pro- 
phetic announcement — an  atoning  death,  the  theor\Ms  unal)le  to 
grasp.  To  admit  that  baptism  has  within  itself  the  power  of 
death,  would  be  to  give  over  to  death  a  dipping  baptism.  The 
death  of  Christ  must  be  interpreted  out  of  his  atoning  baptism 
in  order  that  the  theorj^  may  live.  We  adoringly  accept  the  inter- 
pretation by  our  Lord  of  his  own  words  as  given  again  and  again, 
and  recognize  the  cup  filled  with  penal  woe  such  as  was  never 
held  to  the  lips  of  anj^  other,  and  the  baptism  into  death  conse- 
quent upon  the  drinking  of  that  cup,  as  meeting  the  demands  of 
a  broken  law — "  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one 
that  believeth." 

In  vindication  of  this  understanding  it  ma}''  be  observed:  L  It 
is  in  tlie  most  absolute  harmony  witli  the  representation  of  Scrip- 
ture— suffering  and  death,  suffering  caamiive  of  death.  This  is 
evident  from  the  quotations  already  given  as  well  as  tlie  whole 
tenor  of  Scripture.  2.  It  is  in  no  less  harmony  with  the  force  and 
usage  of  BaizTi^w  and  lid-naixa,  as  used  in  the  Classics  and  in  the 
Scriptures.  The  Greek  verb  is  frequently  used  in  Classic  writ- 
ings where  it  is  causative  of  death  —  "The  dolphin  l)a[)tizing 
killed  him"  (iEsop);  "  I  baptizing  you  by  sea  waves,  will  destroy 
you  "  ( Alcibiades) ;  "  Baptizing  others  into  the  lake,"  drowned 


CUP    BAPTISM.  47 

them  (Heliodorus) ;  "  Whom  it  were  better  to  baptize,"  to  drown 
(Themistius).  We  do  not  find  Bdnrifftia  iu  Classic  writings.  Its 
form  is  expressive  of  the  action  of  the  verb  as  a  result.  What- 
ever power  there  may  be  in  the  verb  to  effect  death,  the  same 
power  is  in  the  substantive  to  express  death.  Whatever  may  be 
the  competency  of  Bdnnaim  to  express  the  condition  of  an  object 
physically  baptized,  yet  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  never  so  used  in 
the  Scriptures.  Its  usage  there  is  limited  to  express  baptisms 
which  are  verbal  or  purely  ideal  in  character.  It  is  once  used 
with  the  verbal  form  expressed  (Rom.  6 :  4)  d'A  zoo  BanriatiaToz 
£(?  TOv  Odvarov,  which  is  implied  in  the  passage  under  consider- 
ation— "  Can  ye  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  (into  death)  with 
which  I  am  baptized."  3.  But  the  question  arises:  Although  the 
Scriptures  conjoin  "  suffering  and  death,"  and  although  baptize 
and  baptism  be  competent  to  express  death,  yet  is  it  allowable  to 
speak  of  a  baptism — a  baptism  into  death,  as  effected  by  drinking 
from  a  cup  ?  In  answer  to  this  question  it  may  be  replied,  that 
there  is  no  one  class  of  baptisms  which  is  more  frequently  spoken 
of  by  Greek  writers  than  just  such  baptisms — baptisms  by  drink- 
ing. It  is  not  true  that  every  kind  of  baptism  can  be  eifected  by 
drinking  ;  nor  is  it  true  that  baptisms  which  can  be  eff"ected  by 
drinking,  can  be  effected  by  drinking  any  kind  of  liquid. 

Baptisms  by  drinking  are  various  in  character,  yet  all  marked 
by  a  thorough  change  of  condition  pervaded  and  controlled  by  the 
CHARACTERISTIC  of  the  bajjtizing  liquid.  No  liquid  which  cannot 
thoroughly  change  the  condition  of  the  drinker  and  sul>ject  him 
to  its  characteristic  quality,  is  capable  of  baptizing.  The  follow- 
ing are  examples  of  baptism  by  drinking:  1.  "Whom,  by  the 
same  drug  (zara/SMTrTiW?),  having  baptized,"  by  drinking  from  a 
cup  (Achilles  Tatius) ;  2.  "  Baptized  (iSeiSanTifrOac)  by  unmixed 
wine,"  by  drinking  from  a  cup  (Athenaeus);  3.  "Baptizing  (/Sarr- 
Tcffaq)  powerfully,"  by  drinking  from  a  cup  (Athenaeus);  4.  "Bap- 
tized (i3a-Ti(Tar_)  Alexander,"  bj^  drinking  fi'om  a  cup  (Gonon);  5. 
"  Baptizes  (iSami'^st.)  with  sleep,  neighbor  to  death,"  by  drinking 
from  a  cup  (Evenus) ;  6.  "  He  resembles  one  baptized  (ftsi^anrKT- 
/jrivw),"  by  drinking  from  a  cup  (Lucian)  ;  7.  "I  am  one  of  those 
yesterday  baptized  (i3£/?a;rr;^/yi;>wv),"  by  drinking  from  a  cup 
(Plato) ;  8.  "  Baptizing  ((ianri'^o'^jsq)  out  of  large  wine  jars,  they 
drank  to  one  another  "  out  of  cups  ;  9.  "  Baptized  (iSsiSaTzriff/iivoc':) 
by  yesterday's  debauch,"  l^y  drinking  from  a  cup  (Plutarch)  ; 
10.  "  The  body  not  yet  baptized  (iielia-Kriaixivov)^''^  by  drinking  from 


48  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

a  cup  (Plutarch).  These  cases  from  classic  Greek  writings  show 
not  only  that  a  baptism  may  be  effected  by  drinking  from  a  cup, 
but  that  this  was  one  of  the  most  familiar  methods  of  effecting  a 
baptism  with  which  they  were  acquainted.  These  baptisms  were 
not  specifically  of  the  same  character.  Some  were  baptisms  of 
drunkenness,  in  which  there  was  a  thorough  change  of  condition 
in  the  baptized  by  the  pervading  and  controlling  influence  of  the 
intoxicating  quality  characterizing  the  liquid  drunk.  Some  were 
baptisms  of  opiate  stupor,  because  the  characteristic  of  the  liquid 
drunk  was  soporific  in  its  nature,  and  consequentl}',  so  thoroughly 
changed  the  condition  of  tlie  baptized  as  to  bring  them  under  the 
controlling  influence  of  that  characteristic.  It  is  an  error  of  the 
most  primary  character  to  call  in  question  a  baptism  because  it  is 
effected  by  drinking  from  a  cup.  It  is  a  matter  of  infinite  indif- 
ference what  is  the  nature  or  form  of  an  act,  or  what  is  the  char- 
acter or  mode  of  applying  any  influence;  if  the  result  is  a  thorough 
change  of  condition  hy  envelopment  without  limitation  of  time,  or 
without  envelopment  by  a  penetrating  and  controlling  influence, 
a  baptism  is  effected.  4.  As  the  way  is  clear  for  a  baptism  bj' 
drinking,  so  the  case  itself  demands  such  interpretation.  To 
make  two  figures  each  limited  to  suffering  is  beyond  justification. 
Any  exposition  which  does  not  include  death  is  equallj''  without 
justification.  The  drinking  of  a  cup  is  not  an  end,  but  a  means 
to  an  end.  What  that  end  is  must  be  determined  by  the  contents 
of  the  cup.  This  cup  is  full  of  suffering,  of  penal  suffering,  de- 
manding and  only  to  be  satisfied  by  death.  The  drinking  of  this 
cup,  then,  has  as  its  issue  not  suffering  but  death.  The  import 
of  a  haptiam  is  the  opposite  of  a  drinking.  It  is  not  a  means,  but 
an  end.  It  is  a  result  reached  through  some  antecedent  action. 
The  natural  relation,  therefore,  of  a  drinking  and  of  a  baptism  is 
that  of  cause  and  effect.  Such  is  the  representation  here — "  Can 
ye  drink  of  the  cup  of  penal  woe  of  which  I  drink,  and  thereby 
be  baptized  with  the  baptism  into  an  atoning  death  with  which  I 
am  baptized  ?"  All  this  was  in  the  mind  of  the  Redeemer,  and 
constituted  tlie  ground  of  impossibility  which  was  involved  in  the 
inquiry,  but  it  was  not  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  and  hence 
their  mistaken  reply,  which  their  Lord  does  not  attempt  to  correct 
but  accei)ts,  in  so  far  as  it  was  susceptible  of  a  true  interpreta- 
tion, namely,  their  full  participation  in  the  benefits  of  his  I)aptism. 
5.  The  usage  of  Scripture  in  parallel  cases  vindicates  this  inter- 
pretation :  "  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  unto  me : 


CUP    BAPTISM.  49 

Take  the  wine  cup  of  this  fury  at  my  hand,  and  cause  all  the 
nations,  to  whom  I  send  thee,  to  drink  it.  And  they  shall  drink, 
and  be  moved,  and  be  mad,  because  of  the  sword  that  I  will  send 
among  them.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel: 
Drink  ye,  and  be  drunken,  and  spew,  and  fall,  and  rise  no  more, 
because  of  the  sword  that  I  will  send  among  you.  And  the  slain 
of  the  Lord  shall  be  at  that  day  from  one  end  of  the  earth  even 
unto  the  other  end  of  the  earth."  (Jerem.  25:  15-38.)  "Thus 
saith  the  Lord  God :  Thou  shalt  drink  of  thy  sister's  cup  deep 
and  large ;  thou  shalt  be  laughed  to  scorn  and  had  in  derision ; 
it  containeth  much.  Thou  shalt  be  filled  with  drunkenness  and 
sorrow,  with  the  cup  of  astonishment  and  desolation,  with  the  cup 
of  thy  sister  Samaria.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  God  :  I  will  bring 
up  a  company  upon  them,  and  will  give  them  to  be  removed  and 
spoiled.  And  the  company  shall  stone  them  with  stones,  and 
dispatch  them  with  their  swords ;  and  they  shall  slay  their  sons 
and  their  daughters,  and  burn  up  their  houses  with  fire."  (Ezek. 
23  :  32-47.)  These  passages  arc  sufficient  to  show  that  in  the 
Scriptures  the  drinking  from  a  cup  is  a  means  to  an  end,  and  that 
in  these  cases  that  end  was  death.  They  drank,  and  were  bap- 
tized into  death.  6.  This  figure  of  a  cup  is  preserved  until  its 
resultant  baptism  is  finished  :  "  0  my  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let 
this  Cup  pass  from  me  ;''  "  0  my  Father,  if  Ihis  Cup  may  not  pass 
from  me  except  I  drink  it,  thy  will  be  done."  (Matt.  26  :  39,  42.) 
"  Father,  if  thou  be  willing,  remove  this  Cup  from  me  ;  never- 
theless, not  my  will  but  thine  be  done,"  (Luke  22  :  42.)  "  Abba, 
Father,  all  things  are  possible  unto  thee ;  take  away  this  Cup  from 
me :  nevertheless,  not  what  I  will,  but  what  thou  wilt."  (Mark 
14  :  36).  "TTie  Cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me  shall  I  not 
drink  it  ?"  (John  18  :  11.)  In  these  allusions  to  "the  Cup,"  there 
is  no  omission  of  the  baptism.  The  baptism  is  in  the  Cup.  That 
Cup  was  upturned,  and  the  last  drop  of  penal  woe  passed  those 
pale  lips  as  they  opened  to  cry  "  Eli,  Eli,  lama  sabachthani?" 
and  with  it  "  he  gave  up  the  ghost,"  and  the  baptism  into  death — 
that  death  which  a  broken  law  demanded,  that  death  which  only 
"the  just  for  the  unjust"  could  die,  that  death  which  made  the 
dying  One  "  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world,"  and  "the  Lord  our  Righteousness,"  that  death  which  was 
the  death  of  Death,  was  "  finished."  Finally,  this  baptism  of  our 
Lord  is  the  only  baptism  of  the  New  Testament  which  is  repre- 
sented as  effected  by  drinking  from  a  cup.     There  is  no  other 

4 


50  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

baptism  which  could  fitly  be  so  represented.  This  baptism  stands 
all  alone.  It  was  no  ordinaiy  death  baptism,  it  was  no  martyr 
death  baptism,  it  was  an  atoning  death  baptism.  The  ordinary 
baptisms,  agencies,  and  symbols,  are  out  of  place.  What  so  fit, 
so  tenderly  beautiful,  as  a  Cup  held  to  his  lips  by  his  Father's 
hand?  In  that  Cup,  melted  down  by  the  mighty  menstruum  of 
the  Law,  are  the  Incarnation,  the  manger,  the  temptations  of  the 
Wilderness,  the  contradiction  of  sinners,  the  scoff,  the  derision, 
the  blaspheming,  the  buffeting,  the  thorn,  the  nail,  the  spear,  the 
forsaking  by  his  Father!  and  He  di-.ink  it  all,  and  was  baptized 
into  death,  "  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  might  not  perish 
but  have  everlasting  life."  The  believer  in  Christ  drinks  of  the 
cup  of  which  he  drank,  but  not  until  it  is  emptied  b}'  liis  Lord 
of  its  penal  woe,  and  is  made  unto  him  a  "  cup  of  salvation  ;"  he 
is  "baptized  with  the  baptism  with  which  he  is  baptized,"  l)ut  not 
until  its  death  issue  is  exhausted,  and  life  springs  up  in  its  stead. 
The  sinner  who  comes  to  Christ,  penitent  and  believing,  is  bap- 
tized into  Christ,  "  who  is  made  sin  for  us  that  we  might  be  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."  This  baptism  of  soul  purifica- 
tion could  not  be  represented  b^^  the  drinking  from  a  cup  ;  this 
might  represent  the  gift  of  life,  but  not  the  remission  of  sin ;  there- 
fore Christian  baptism,  the  purification  of  the  soul  by  the  blood 
of  Christ,  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  fitly  sj^mbolized  by  pure 
water,  not  drunk,  but  applied  to  the  body. 

THREEFOLD    CHARACTER    OF    THE    BAPTISM    RECEIVED    BY    CHRIST. 

The  personal  baptism  of  Christ  is  presented  by  Scripture  in  a 
threefold  form  :  1.  As  a  covenant  baptism  engaging  to  the  fulfil- 
ment of  all  righteousness ;  received  from  his  Forerunner  on  his 
public  assumption  of  that  work  which  lie  came  into  tlie  world  to 
do.  2.  As  a  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  third  Person  of  the 
Godhead,  descending  upon  him  and  abiding  with  him  in  loving 
sj'mpatliy  with  the  covenant  baptism,  and  purposed  co-operation 
by  measureless  influence,  in  order  to  its  perfect  accomplishment. 
In  this  baptism  (sv  Ihshtj.an  "Ayuo)  {he  tcati  never  taken  out  of  it) 
the  Saviour  ever  lived  ;  under  its  i)ower  he  ever  spake  and  wrought 
his  miracles  of  power;  and  finally,  "through  the  eternal  Spirit 
offering  himself  without  spot  to  God,"  he  did  on  Calvary  redeem 
the  covenant  made  on  Jordan,  "fuUlUing  all  righteousness,"  and 
by  his  blood  shed  purging  the  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve 
the  living  (iod.  (Heb.  i) :  14.)     8.   As  a  baptism  into  penal  and 


CHARACTER    OF    THE    BAPTISM    RECEIVED    BY    CHRIST.       51 

atoning  death.  By  this  baptism,  endured  as  "a  ransom  for  many," 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  becomes  "the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world."  He  is  possessed  of  this  power  in  the 
most  absohite  degree.  The  characteristic  quality  of  au}?^  liquid 
substance  is  developed  b}^  and  communicated  in  the  fullest  meas- 
ure to  an  object  baptized  into  it.  Any  suitable  object  (fruit)  bap- 
tized (not  dijjped)  into  vinegar,  becomes  pervaded  with  its  acid 
quality  and  is  thoroughly  changed  as  to  its  condition,  is  converted 
into  a.  pickle.  If  the  liquid  be  melted  sugar,  the  saccharine  quality 
pervades  the  fruit;  it  is  thoroughlj^  changed  as  to  its  condition, 
and  becomes  ^preserve.  If  the  fluid  be  alcoholic  in  character, 
the  fruit  is  pervaded  by  this  alcoholic  characteristic,  becomes 
assimilated  to  it,  and  thoroughly  changed  in  condition,  as  hrandied 
fruit.  These  unquestionable  facts  furnish  the  basis  for  the  fol- 
lowing twofold  usage:  1.  Where  a  characteristic  quality  is  com- 
municated, in  any  way,  so  as  to  pervade,  assimilate,  and  thor- 
oughly change  the  condition,  to  wit,  as  by  drinking  an  opiate,  or 
by  the  descent,  indwelling,  and  filling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  those 
who  receive  such  communication  are  declared,  alike  by  heathen 
and  by  inspired  writers,  to  be  baptized.  2.  Where  it  is  desired 
to  express  the  communication  of  a  characteristic  pervading,  assim- 
ilating, and  thoroughly  changing  the  condition,  but  where,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  there  can  be  no  intusposition  for  this  purpose, 
a  verbal  form  (ci?  with  the  impossible  receptive  element)  suggests 
such  communication  in  the  clearest  and  strongest  possible  man- 
ner, and  is  employed  to  express  a  verbal  or  ideal  baptism.  This 
form  of  phraseology  does  not  appear  in  the  Classics.  It  originates 
in  the  Scriptures.  It  abounds  there  ;  sometimes  expressing  essen- 
tially diverse  baptisms,  but  generall}',  under  diversified  phrase- 
ology, conveying  the  same  substantial  truth.  The  design  of  the 
phraseology  appears  to  be  to  express  the  truth  taught  in  the 
strongest,  most  explicit,  and  most  impressive  manner  possible. 
Concurrent  with  this  design  may  have  been  another,  namely,  to 
separate  in  the  most  marked  manner  the  New  Testament  baptisms, 
real  and  ritual,  from  phj'sical  intuspositions,  of  which  the  New 
Testament  knows  absolutely  nothing. 

Corollary.  If  the  characteristic  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as 
"the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world," 
be  expressed  as  developed  in  the  fullest,  the  clearest,  and  the 
most  impressive  manner,  it  will  be  by  phraseology  expressive  of  a 
Baptism  INTO  Christ. 


CHRISTIC  BAPTISM:  BAPTISM  ADMINISTERED  BY 

CHRIST. 

BAPTISM  BY  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

John  1 :  33. 

OvrSg  iariv  6  ^otttiZuv  kv  Jlvev/narc  'Ayio). 
"  This  is  he  that  baptizeth  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

This  passage  might  be  translated,  "  This  is  The  Baptizer  who 
is  in  " — full  of,  invested  with  the  power  of — "  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  translation — "  This  is  he  that  baptizeth  (=:immerseth,  dip- 
peth?)  in  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Baptist  version),  making  the  Holy 
Ghost  the  receiving  element  of  the  baptized  object,  is  an  impos- 
sible translation  whether  we  consider  grammatical  law,  Greek 
(Classic  and  Hellenistic)  usage,  or  New  Testament  doctrine. 

The  translation — "  This  is  the  Baptizer  who  is  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  i§  one  which  is  unquestionably  possible,  quite  probable, 
and  not  without  many  and  strong  reasons  to  vindicate  as  the  true 
translation.  The  following  are  some  of  the  reasons  which  sustain 
it :  1.  It  is  generally  admitted  (Stuart,  Hodge,  Ellicott,  Olshausen, 
Winer)  that  such  phraseology  may  be  explained  b}'  the  supply  of 
the  participle  (aiv)  being,  or  its  equivalent.  Winer  (p.  389)  says : 
"In  Rom.  15  :  16  tf  flvsufiart  ' Ayiu)  is  employed  designedly,  in  the 
Holy  Spirit  (an  internal  principle).  Least  of  all  does  iv  XpiarSt 
ever  signify  per  Christum  ;  but  this  phrase  invariably  refers,  for 
the  most  part  in  an  abbreviated  way,  to  the  being  in  Christ,  iivai 
iv  XpirtTu).  So,  likewise,  in  1  Cor.  12:  3,  iv  ■nv^btiazi  denu  is  to  be 
rendered  quite  literally,  speaking  in  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  element 
in  which  the  speaker  lives.  The  preposition  in  ^i-  dvoimn  nvuq  sim- 
ply means  in.  And  something  takes  place  '  in  a  person's  name,' 
when  it  is  to  be  set  down  to  his  personal  activity,  of.  Acts  4  :  t, 
'Ev  Ttoia  duvdfxei  yj  iv  noiw  dvoiiari  kizotyjirare  touto  VfieJq  ;  In  what  power 
or  in  what  name  have  ye  done  this?"  Olshausen  (Rom.  9:1) 
says:  "After  these  words,  iv  X[n<TT<JJ,in  Christ,  iv  Iheufiart  'Ayiu), 
in  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  ought  rather  to  understand  wv."  Under 
this  principle  of  interpretation  the  phrase  6  fianri^wv  iv  llvsO/xaTc 
(  52  ) 


THE    BAPTIZER   IN    THE    HOLY    GHOST.  53 

'Ayiu)  represents  the  condition  of  6  ^aTZTi'^wv  as  "in  the  Holy  Ghost." 
With  this  should  be  associated  the  principle  stated  by  Bishop 
Ellicott,  Ephes.  5  :  18,  ^v  Tlvebixart.  There  would  seem  to  have  been 
an  intentional  inclusiveness  in  the  use  of  this  preposition,  as  Mat- 
thies  suggests :  "The  Spirit  is  not  the  bare  instrument  by  which, 
but  that  in  which  and  by  which  the  true  Christian  is  fully  filled." 
So  in  the  phrase  under  consideration,  h  UvEuixaTt.  "Aym  does  not 
denote  merel}'  instrumentality  or  inness  of  condition,  but  has  an 
inclusiveness  which  erabi-aces  both  ideas  ;  6  ^anzi'liov  is  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  is  thereby  invested  with  power  to  baptize  by  the.  Holy 
Ghost.  And  according  as  the  one  idea  or  the  other  may  be  pre- 
dominant in  a  particular  case  of  usage,  the  translation  should  be 
"m  the  Holy  Ghost  "  or  "  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  2.  This  view  is 
clearly  and  strongly  sustained  by  the  context.  The  6  iSann^ojv  h 
Hveunart  '^Ayiio  was  to  be  identified  by  this  evidence,  namelj^,  "Upon 
whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  remaining  on  him, 
the  same  is  6  ^aTiri'^cuv  iv  Iheoim-i  'Ayioj^  Now  such  descent  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  always  indicative  of  spiritual  endowment  and 
qualification  for  office  or  special  work.  It  was  so  in  this  case  by 
special  declaration.  He  on  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  and 
on  whom  he  remained,  "  without  measure,"  was  thus  qualified  for 
his  amazing  work,  and  qualified  to  be  6  ^anri'^iov  h  TIvzijiiaTi  'Ayiu) — 
the  Baptizer  who  was  himself  zn  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  being  in  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  thereby  invested  with  power  to  baptize  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  3.  Other  passages  of  Scripture  sustain  the  same  view.  As 
a  consequence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  descending  and  remaining  on 
him,  "Jesus  was  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  was  led  in  the 
Spirit  {h  Uveufmri)  into  the  wilderness"  (Luke  4  : 1).  This  state- 
ment of  Luke  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  that  of  Matthew  4: 1, 
"  Then  was  Jesus  led  up  of  the  Spirit  (ujto  tou  tlveuixaroq)  into  the 
wilderness."  The  statements  are  different  but  harmonious.  Luke 
states  directly  the  condition,  h  Fheonan^  in  which  Jesus  was,  and 
thus,  indirect]}',  the  influence  under  which  he  acted ;  Matthew 
omits  the  condition  in  which  Jesus  was,  and  states  the  Divine 
influence  by  which  he  was  guided.  This  distinction  is  overlooked 
by  Middleton,  and  his  suggestion  that  iv  is  put  for  u-d  falls  uuder 
the  condemnatioji  of  Winer  (p.  362),  pronounced  against  "  an 
arbitrary  interchange  of  prepositions  (upheld  in  part  by  an  abuse 
of  parallel  passages)  ....  Luke  (4:  14)  farther  says:  "And  Jesus 
returned  {Iv  tyj  8uvd/xtt  ruu  Iheu/j-arai;)  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit." 
Thus  we  have  expressly  stated  the  double  truth,  that  Jesus  was 


54  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

"  in  the  Spirit,"  and  as  a  consequence,  he  was  invested  with  "  the 
power  of  the  Spirit."     We  are  farther  told  (v^  18),  that  hy  "the 
Spirit  upon  him  "  he  was  anointed  to  preach  the  gospel  and  (v. 
32)  "his  word  was  with  power."    4.  As  the  preaching  of  Jesus  was 
iv  nveufiarc,  SO  also  were   his  miracles  wrought   i.v  Ihsufxarc  dsoo. 
We  have  in  Matt.  12  :  24-28  a  parallel  usage  of  this  preposition — 
"  OoTo'-  oux   t/.fldlXst   ra  datijjhia  el  jxtj   iv  tw  (iesX^sfiohl :    This  fellow 
doth  not  cast  out  devils,  but  by  Beelzebub."     This  might  with  as 
much  propriety  be  translated,  "  He  casts  out  devils  in  Beelze- 
bub" (making  Beelzebub  the  recipient  of  the  devils  cast  out)  as 
A'jToq  u/idq  fi(j.T.Ti<T=.i  £v  Hv£u;j.a-i  'Aytcu  be  translated,  "  He  shall  bap- 
tize you  in  the  H0I3'  Ghost,"  making  the  Holy  Ghost  the  recipient 
of  the  baptized.      Neither   translation    can    be    tolerated.     The 
Baptist  version  expounding  the  use  of  iv,  says :  "  'Ev  with  dative 
of  ^er.s'on  denotes  the  one  in  whom  resides  the  power  or  authority, 
by  which  a  thing  is  done  ;  hence  by  or  through.^'     But  this  expla- 
nation is  inadequate.     It  does  not  cover  the  case.     The  connec- 
tion between    the   Caster  out   of  devils   and   Beelzebub  is  not 
accounted  for.     How  does   he  become  possessed  of  that  power 
which  is  in  Beelzebub  ?     This  is  naturally  and  clearly  expounded 
b}'^  placing  Ourt»c  and  iv  in  their  proper  relation  to  each  other; 
"this  fellow"  is  then  declared  to  be  "in  Beelzebub,"  and  thus 
becomes  invested  with  his  power.     This  clearly  is  the  statement 
made,  as  shown  by  the  words  of  Jesus  (v.  27) :  "If  I  (iv  i^tek'^e- 
t^ohX)  in  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils ; "  where  the  relation  of  lyo}  and 
i'>  cannot  be  mistaken.     This  point  is  farther  established  by  the 
statement  of  Mark  3:  23,  ""Otj  (iezX^efitihX  e/ei,  y.ai  ore  iv  toj  tipyo'^rt. 
Twv  diuiwviujv  .  .  .  Because  he  hath  Beelzebub  and  because  he  is  in 
the  Prince  of  the  devils  he  casts  out  the  devils."     Here  a  demon 
power  is  expressly  declared  to  be  possessed  by  Jesus,  and  he  is 
declared  to  be  "in  the  Prince  of  demons"  whence  this  demon 
power  proceeds.    The  relation  of  ^i',  then,  is  with  Ohro<;^  and  "  this 
fellow  "  is  declared  to  be  h  iSseX^sfiahX,  and  thus  invested  with  his 
power.     This  view  is  conclusively  established  by  the  repudiation 
of  this  singularly  wicked  charge  and  the  claim  by  the  Lord  Jesus, 
that  he  was  in  the  Spirit  of  God — "  El  8s  iyu)  iv  llveoiiart  Beou.     If 
I  in  (and  therefore  invested  ivith  the  power  of)  the  Spirit  of  God 
cast  out  devils;"  and  Luke  11  :  20,  "  El  de  iv  da/.ruXu}  0eou.     But  if 
in  (therefore  by)  the  finger  of  God  I  cast   out  devils"  .  .  .  . 
Throughout  this  narrative  the  preposition  iv  has  most  evidently 
its  instrumental  force,  grounded  in  its  primary  meaning,  as  bear- 


THE    BAPTIZER    IN  THE    HOLY    GHOST.  55 

ing  upon  Oorvq.     The  same  is  true  as  to  iv  and  its  relation  with 
6  [ioLTzri^ojv  in  the  passage  under  consideration.     "The  Baptizer" 
is  represented  as  being  in,  and  hence  baptizing  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
5.  The  prophetic  declaration  of  John,  Matt.  3:11,  "  He  shall  bap- 
tize you  (^y  UveO/xaTi  ^Ayiu))  being  in  (and  therefore  by)  the  Holy 
Ghost."     The  translation  of  this  passage  by  the  Baptist  version 
— "  He  shall  immerse  (dip?)  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  untenable 
in  every  point  of  view:  (1.)  It  cannot  be  vindicated  under  the 
theory  held  as  to  the  meaning  of  [ia-KTriZw.    (2.)  The  conjunction  of 
(■iar.ri^u)  iv  to  express  the  transition  of  an  object  out  of  one  medium 
into  another  medium  cannot  be  vindicated  by  any  Classic  usage. 
(3.)  The  prophecy  put  into  the  mouth  of  John  declaring,  that  the 
great  characteristic  of  the  mission  of  the  Lord    Jesus   Christ 
should  be  "  to  immerse  (dip)  in  the  Holy  Ghost "  is  without  a 
word  of  Scripture  to  support  the  declaration,  and  without  a  fact  to 
evidence  its  fulfilment.     We  accept  therefore  the  great  announce- 
ment of  John,  that  his  Lord  should  be  in  and  baptize  by  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  a  declaration   made  ages  before  by  the  Prophets,  pro- 
claimed as  a  fact  by  the  Evangelists,  and  exemplified  with  power 
and  great  glory  in  the  history  of  the  church.     6.  This  interpre- 
tation is  confirmed  by  a  contrasted  parallelism  with  the  personal 
condition   and  power  ascribed  by  the   Scriptures  to  the  Fore- 
runner.    In  Luke  1 :  17  it  is  said:  "And  he  shall  go  before  him 
(ti^  ■Kvsbtj.ari  /.at  du^d/jLsi  ^HXiou)  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias." 
No  one,  so  far  as  I  know,  ever  questioned,  that  by  this  language 
John  was  foretold  as  coming  in  (therefore  invested  with  and 
qualified  by)  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias  for  the  great  work 
before  him.   When  now  it  was  foretold  by  Isaiah,  that  the  anoint- 
ing spirit  of  the  Lord  should  be  upon  Jesus ;  when  it  was  fore- 
told to  John  that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  descend  and  remain 
upon  him ;  when  it  was  foretold  by  John  that  he  should  baptize 
being  h  Uveu/jiaTi  '^Aytw]  when  John  declares  he  saw  the  prophetic 
sign  verified  with  his  own  e3^es,  and  on  that  foundation  immedi- 
ately declares  Jesus  as  Ooroq  eanv  6  ^aKTc'^wv  h  llveuij-an  Ayiu) ;  why 
shall  we  hesitate  to  accept  this  multiplied  testimony  to  the  per- 
sonal condition  and  power  of  the  divine  Baptizer,  and  recognize 
the  truth,  that  because  John  came  "  h  Tc^zuixazi  /.at  duvdnsi  'HXcou,^^ 
while  his  Lord  came  "ev  Uveu/Jiarc  "^ Ayiu} — iv  Suvd/xet  xui  Uveufxarc  deoo  " 
— therefore  the  Forerunner  was  "  unworthy  to  bear  the  shoes  "  of 
the  Coming  One  ? 

The  interpretation  of  this  passage  will  remind  us  of  the  rules 


56  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  Winer  (p.  353) :  The  present  participle  (with  the  article)  is 
often  used  substantively,  and  then  as  a  noun,  excludes  all  indica- 
tion of  time.  In  Eph.  4  :  28  o  xX^rrajv  is  the  stealer;  Matt.  27  :  40 
V  -/.o-zaXowi)  the  deatroyer;  Gal.  1  :  23  6  8iw/.wv  the  persecutor ;  and 
(p.  135)  "  When  an  adjunct  (consisting  of  a  noun  and  preposition) 
which  in  reality  forms  with  the  substantive  but  one  leading  idea, 
is  to  be  linked  to  the  preceding  noun  simply  by  the  voice,  the 
grammatical  connective  of  the  written  language  (z.  e.  the  article) 
is  wanting,  e.  g.  Col.  1 :  8,  zijv  upMv  dydjzrj'^  iv  Ilveuiiart^  your  love  in 
the  Spirit.  This  takes  place  especially  in  the  oft-recurring  apos- 
tolic phrase,  l\>  Xpiaroj^  Iv  xuptu),  (^iv  Iheu/jLart)^  as  1  Thess.  4:16 
ol  vexpo}  iv  XpiffToj  the  dead  in  Christ,  with  which  is  contrasted 
(v.  17)  oi  l^aJvTs^  (iv  XpKTzo))  the  living  in  Christ;  Eph.  4:  1  dicrixux; 
iv  xupiu)  the  prisoner  in  the  Lord."  On  tliis  last  passage  EUicott 
quotes  Fritz.  Rom.  8  : 1,  ^w  Kupioi  wv  vinctus  est  he  was  hound  being 
in  the  Lord.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ — »  ^anzi^wv  iv  Uvsu/iaTi  "Ayio) 
— is  "  the  Divine  baptizer  being  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  interpretation  which  does  not  recognize  Christ  as  "  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  but  represents  him  as  "  immersing  (dipping)  in 
hol}^  spirit,"  "in  the  essence  of  holy  spirit,"  "in  abstract  holy 
spirit,"  "in  a  holy  spirit,"  shows  how  an  initial  error  leads  on  to 
other  and  more  portentous  error.  The  translators  of  the  Baptist 
Bible  have  no  ditHculty  in  seeing  a  personal  Beelzebub  in  iv  rui 
Ike/.!^si3<)hX,  hut  the}'^  see  no  personal  Holy  Ghost  in  ev  nveO/iart 
'Ayiuj,  John  1:33,  Matt.  3:11,  although  indissolubly  connected 
with  Matt.  3  :  16,  4  :  1 ;  Luke  4:1,14;  Matt.  12 :  28;  Acts  1  :  2,  5 ; 
Heb.  9:  14  ...  .  This  statement  is  illustrated  by  the  following 
quotations  from  the  notes  on  the  Baptist  version  :  "  Matt.  3:11, 
'  He  will  immerse  you  in  holy  spirit ;'  note,  In  holy  spirit.  By  this 
is  meant  that  divine  influence,  so  often  expressed  by  the  Greek 
words  .  .  .  Tlie  omission  of  the  article,  in  this  and  similar  cases, 
will  enable  the  English  reader  to  make  the  distinction  intended 
by  the  sacred  writer."  "  'John  I  ;  33,  he  it  is  that  immerseth  in 
the  Holy  Spirit.'  Note:  I  would  greatl}'  prefer  to  render  these 
words  literally.  Holy  Spirit,  without  the  article.  I  do  not  con- 
sider the  meu/m  aytov  here  spoken  of  to  be  the  personal  spirit,  con- 
templated as  such,  but,  simpl}',  divine  essence,  abstracted,  in  the 
mind  of  the  writer,  from  all  ideas  of  personal  attribution  or  rela- 
tions." Dr.  Conant  does  not  appear  to  approve  of  this  transla- 
tion as  interpreted.  Li  his  Dissert,  p.  67,  while  he  repeats  the 
translation  of  Matt.  3  :  11,  "he  will  immerse  you  in  holy  spirit.,^' 


THE    BAPTIZER    IN    THE    HOLY    GHOST.  57 

he  translates  John  1  :  33,  "  this  is  he  that  immerses  in  the  Holy 
Spirits 

The  translator  of  Acts  does  not  seem  to  agree  with  either  of  his 
fellow-laborers  in  the  interpretation  of  this  phrase:  '"Acts  1  :  5, 
You  shall  be  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Note:  The  Book  of 
the  Acts  is  not  inappropriately  called  '  The  Gospel  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.'  His  personal  attributes,  mission  and  work,  are  more  full}' 
developed.  .  .  .  Speculative  theologians  have  been  much  per- 
plexed in  their  versions  and  criticisms  upon  the  anarthrous  forms 
of  this  Divine  person.  .  .  .  We  judge  it  expedient  to  take  a  criti- 
cal and  full  view  of  this  third  pergonal  manifestation  of  Jehovah. 
.  .  .  Thus  ■mvs.bij.a  becomes  definite,  because  specific,  b}'  the  adjunct 
d^f«v.  There  is  no  room  for  mistake.  So  far  from  the  article  being 
necessary  to  give  deflniteuess  or  individuality  to  r.vzuij.a  dywv^  it  is 
its  very  definite  and  individual  character  that  enables  it  to  stand 
without  the  article.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  nveu/ia 
ayiov  is  an  abstract  noun.  Ilvso;j.a  alone  may  be  used  as  an  abstract 
noun,  but  surely  not  with  the  qualifying  and  specific  adjunct  dycov. 
.  .  .  The  Holy  Spirit  is  set  forth  in  his  individual,  personal,  and 
specific  character,  as  mtviia  ayiov ;  not  as  an  influence  of  something 
else,  but  a  concurring  and  self-acting  personal  divine  agent  in 
consummating  and  completing  the  work  of  redemption.  .  .  .  Here 
there  can  be  no  mistake.  The  to  ll^suim  to  'Ayuiv  promised  in  John 
14  :  26  is  the  msup-a  dycov  in  which  the  Harbinger  promised  they 
should  be  immersed,  the  same  n^eu^aa  dyw^  for  which  the  Saviour 
bid  them  tarry  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  to  dywv  nvsuiu/.  which  was  to 
come  upon  them  in  order  to  endue  them  with  power,  &c.,  as  found 
in  V.  8.  The  identity  of  the  subject  as  indicated  b^'  the  several 
expressions,  ■Kvs.up.a  dycov,  ro  Tzvsuixa  to  aytov^  and  TO  ayuiv  nvsujia^  Can- 
not be  doubted." 

This  is  suflficiently  decided  as  against  an  immersion  (=  dipping) 
"in  holy  spirit,"  "in  divine  essence,"  "in  abstract  spirit,"  "in  a 
holy  spirit  "  (Stovel) ;  but  how  such  great  office  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  a  world's  redemption  accords  with  a  representation  of 
the  third  Person  in  the  Godhead,  being  a  quiescent  medium  into 
which  the  souls  of  men  are  to  be  introduced  by  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  remains  to  be  explained. 

The  passage  is  to  be  understood  as  announcing  the  peculiar 
character  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  a  Baptizer.  This  is  done 
by  exhibiting  him  in  a  twofold  aspect :  1.  As  being  personally 
kv  IlvsujiaTi  'Ayiuj.     2.  As  a  consequence  of  being  ^i'  UveufxaTi  'Ayiu), 


58  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

being  invested  with  the  power  of  baptizing  hy  the  Holy  Ghost. 
In  the  use  of  this  phraseology  the  Scriptures  are  self-interpreta- 
tive:  Acts  4  :  t,  " '£V  -ilia  duvd'i.ei  yj  b^  Tzotoj  o'yoij.aTi^  being  in  (there- 
fore working  hij)  what  power,  or  being  in  (therefore  working  hy) 
what  name?"  v.  9,  ^'- h  tjvj,  in  (therefore  by)  whom;"  v.  10,  '•'■  Iv 
ovoimTi  I.  X,  in  (therefore  by)  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ;  "  v.  12, 
"  iv  uXku)  ojds'A^  in  (therefore  by)  no  other ; "  "  h  w,  in  (therefore 
by)  whom  we  must  be  saved;"  v.  30,  ev  tw,  in  (the  Lord  (v.  29) 
being  in)  therefore  healing  by  his  hand  ;  "  Std  rou  ovo/iaToq.  through 
the  name  (by  those  being  Iv  tcu  S'^j/mrt)  of  th\^  holy  child  Jesus." 
The  Lord  Jesus  being  ^v  //.  'A.  did  '■'■  ota  II.  'A.  give  commands" 
(Acts  1  :  2),  and  "  Scd  II.  'A.  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God." 
(Heb.  9  :  14.)  John  "coming  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias  " 
was  qualified  to  do  his  work  through  that  spirit  and  power.  John's 
Lord  coining  "  in  the  Spirit  and  power  of  God  "  was  qualified  to 
do  his  work  through  that  Spirit  and  power. 

Some  may  prefer  interpreting  iv  ]lv£i>;xarc  " Ayio)  as  qualifying 
6  [iar.ri'^ujv  as  expressing  an  act  rather  than  in  a  purely  substantive 
use.    Such  interpretation  will  affect  the  form  only  of  the  argument. 


Acts  1  :  5. 

'T/ieig  Je  ^anTiaOyataOe  iv  Jlvev/jan  'Ayiu, 
"  But  ye  shall  be  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

THE   BAPTISM    OF    THE    APOSTLES    FOR    THEIR   APOSTLESHIP. 

This  great  baptism  is  a  worthy  illustration  of  that  divine  in- 
vestiture publicl}'-  received  by  the  incarnate  Redeemer  in  entering 
on  his  covenant  work  by  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by 
reason  of  which  he  was  proclaimed  by  his  Forerunner  to  be — 
"  6  [iar.Ti^Mv  h  Iheo/j-arc  "^Ayioj — the  Baptizer  who  being  in  the  Holy 
Ghost  bai)tizes  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  is  also  a  very  clear  and 
striking  illustration  of  the  diversity  in  baptisms.  The  theory  does 
not  and  cannot  consistently  recognize  diversity  in  baptisms.  The 
argument  is — "  A  dipping  is  a  dii)ping  and  a  baptism  (:=  dipping) 
is  a  baptism  (=:  dipping)."  There  may  be  a  dipping  of  diverse 
objects  into  diverse  elements  with  diverse  results,  but  the  dipping 
remains  unchanged  and  unchangeable.  To  baptize  is  to  perform 
"  a  definite  act,"  to  dij) ;  and  this  is  its  meaning  they  say  always, 
never  being  used  to  express  the  result  of  an  act,  laying  aside  defi- 
nite form.     That  is  to  say,  the  friends  of  the  theory  still  make 


DR.  CARSON  AND  THE  THEORY.  59 

their  argument  as  to  fio.TzriXuj  as  formerly  in  relation  to  [idr.rut^  to 
turn  on  a  modal  act,  exclusive,  invariable,  and  always  present  in 
fact  or  in  imagination.    Those  wlio  do  not  accept  this  theory  deny 
the  foundation  (modal  action)  on  which  it  rests,  affirming  that 
fia-Ti'lu)  does  not  belong  to  the  class  of  verbs  expressing  modal 
action,  but  to  that  class  which  makes  demand  for  condition.    They 
farther  affirm,  that  the  condition  (intusposition)  demanded  for  its 
object  by  fiar.ri'^u)  does  invariabl}?,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case, 
result  in  a  complete  change  of  condition  of  the  object,  and  ordi- 
narily in  a  farther  change  of  condition  in  consequence  of  the  object 
being  penetrated,  pervaded,  and  thus  assimilated  to  the  cliarac- 
teristic  quality  of  the  encompassing  element.     And,  grounded  in 
this  unquestionable  fact,  it  is  still  farther  affirmed,  that  fianriXio 
has  a  secondary  usage  in  which  the  condition  of  intusposition  does 
not  appear,  but  a  condition  identically  the  same  as  or  analogous 
to  that  resulting  from  intusposition  (namely,  interpenetration  and 
assimilation),  but  effected  in  any  way  or  by  any  means.     The 
friends  of  the  theory  having  been  confronted  by  Dr.  Carson  with 
the  rhetorical  enormity  of  "  dipping  a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a  frog," 
they  abandoned  the  doctrine  that  t^dnzoj  means  "to  dip  and  noth- 
ing but  dip,"  and  accepted  a  secondary  meaning  based  upon  the 
effect  of  dipping  under  certain  conditions,  namel3',  into  a  dyeing 
liquid  an  object  fit  to  receive  by  interpenetration  and  assimilation 
the  characteristic  quality  of  the  dye,  so  that  dipping  in  blood 
{i[id-zez(i  rjalp/iri)  became  transformed  into  ''^  dyed  hj  blood,"  the 
modal  act  utterly  disappearing.     The  "  fantastic  tricks  "  of  rhet- 
oric resorted  to  in  order  to  save  modal  act  to  frid-zoj  are  a  trifle 
compared  with  those  which  have  been  found  necessary  (not  to  save 
for  it  never  was  there,  but)  to  give,  de  noco,  modal  act  to  iio.-Kz>Xuj. 
Many  of  these  rich  imaginings  we  have  already  met  with,  and 
shall  meet  with  more,  and  with  one  (not  the  least  remarkable)  in 
the  passage  now  to  be  considered. 

Dr.  Carbon  and  the  Theory. 

There  is  a  propriety  in  giving  prominence  to  the  views  of  Dr. 
Carson  on  this  subject,  because  he  is  regarded  in  Great  Britain 
as  without  a  peer  among  his  fellows;  and  in  America  his  writings 
are  issued  by  the  Baptist  Board  of  Publication  as  of  standard 
authority.  All  must  acknowledge  that  the  writings  of  Dr.  Carson 
have  unusual  power.     This  arises  in  part  from  the  element  of 


60  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

truth  which  is  obvious ;  but  still  more  by  the  boldest  statements 
declaring  that  to  be  true  which  is  untrue  (he  honestly  believing 
his  statement  to  be  true)  and  the  ordinary  reader  being  unable 
to  detect  its  falsity.  Dr.  Carson  is  also  a  man  of  the  profoundest 
convictions,  of  the  most  daring  courage,  of  imperious  will,  and 
an  utter  stranger  to  veneration  for  any  human  name  that  stands 
opposed  to  him.  He  sees  difficulties  only  to  trample  them  under 
foot.  He  meets  opposing  suggestions  only  to  fling  them  behind 
his  back.  He  writes  with  the  unreserved  force  of  a  man  who 
claims  that  what  he  writes  is  "demonstration  "  and  for  "eternity." 
With  such  characteristics  associated  with  respectable  learning, 
and  special  study  of  language  in  some  of  its  departments,  the 
writings  of  Dr.  Carson  could  not  but  be  impressive.  Other  writers 
are  more  learned,  as  Gale;  more  critical,  as  Ripley;  more  broad 
and  judicious,  as  Conant;  more  refined  and  candid,  as  Morrell; 
but  no  writer  of  his  class  has  the  power  which  belongs  to  Carson. 
I  am  happy  to  say,  farther,  that  whatever  of  amenity  and  polish 
ma\'  be  obviously  lacking  in  the  author  of  these  writings,  there 
is  no  less  of  evidence  that  he  is  a  truly  honest  and  Christian  man. 
Some  of.  his  friends  may  think  that  it  was  a  sad  illogicisra  which 
led  this  earnest  defender  of  a  "dipping  into  the  water"  not  to 
refuse  to  others  "a  crumb  dropping  from  the  children's  table," 
and  even  to  allow  them  to  sit  down  with  him  and  eat  of  the 
same  "bread"  and  drink  of  the  same  "cup."  But  this  sin  surely 
was  not  remembered  against  him  when  in  death  he  passed  into 
the  presence  of  the  Master  who  gave  of  the  children's  bread  even 
to  a  Syrophenician. 

If  the  views  of  Dr.  Carson  as  to  the  baptism  under  consideration 
appear  to  be  sucl\  as  no  rational  man  could  entertain,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  their  very  extravagance  is  proof  that  Dr.  Carson 
was  no  ordinary  man.  A  common  man,  one  of  an  everyday 
courage,  self-confidence,  and  faith  in  a  theory,  would  have  shrunk 
back  from  their  promulgation  ;  it  required  the  nerve  and  faith  of 
Carson  to  follow  theory  into  self-contradiction  and  absurdity  with 
a  triumphant  step.  But  let  us  look  at  his  interpretation  of  this 
baptism  of  the  Apostles  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  a  dipping. 


^^  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'" 

The  section  which  introduces  the  discussion  bears  the  heading, 
"  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit."     This  phraseology  exemplifies  the 


"baptism  of  the  holy  spirit."  ^ 

deceptive  and  (in  view  of  his  fundamental  principles)  the  incon- 
sistent use  of  language  which  so  largely  characterizes  and  vitiates 
the  entire  book.  No  friend  of  the  theory  has  a  right  to  speak  of 
"the  baptism  of  the  Spirit."  Such  language  implies  either  that 
"the  Spirit"  is  to  be  the  object  dipped,  or  is  to  be  the  agent  who 
is  to  dip  some  one  else;  but  the  theory  rejects  both  these  views, 
and  insists  upon  a  dipping  of  somebody  by  somebody  "^■/^  the 
Spirit."  Then  stand  by  this  position.  Do  not  tacitly  disavow  it 
by  going  into  the  camp  of  the  enemy  to  borrow  their  banner. 
"Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  is  our  legend.  Let  those  who 
believe  in  "a  dipping  in  the  Holy  Spirit"  manfiillj' avow  it, boldly 
display  it,  and  if  they  can  triumphantly  defend  it. 

The  statements  of  Dr.  Carson  under  this  heading  will  now  be 
given  and  followed  by  needful  criticisms. 

"  Figure  " — "  Immersion  " — "  Dipping  " — "  SanctifcatioJi.^' 

"The  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  a  figurative  expression, explicable 
on  the  principle  of  a  reference  to  immersion.  This  represents  the 
abundance  of  the  gifts  and  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the 
enlightening  and  sanctifying  of  believers.  That  which  is  im- 
mersed in  a  liquid,  is  completel}'  subjected  to  its  influence  and 
imbued  with  its  virtues;  so,  to  be  immersed  in  the  Spirit,  repre- 
sents the  subjection  of  soul,  body,  and  spirit  to  his  influence. 
The  whole  man  is  sanctified." 

"Believers  are  said  to  be  immersed  into  the  Spirit,  not  because 
there  is  anything  like  immersion  in  the  manner  of  the  reception 
of  the  Spirit,  but  from  the  resemblance  between  an  object  im- 
mersed in  a  fluid  and  the  sanctification  of  all  the  members  of  the 
body  and  faculties  of  the  soul." 

"But  though  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  figurative 
baptism  to  which  there  cannot  be  a  likeness  in  the  literal  baptism  ; 
yet,  as  respects  the  transaction  on  the  day  Pentecost,  there  was 
a  real  baptism  in  the  emblems  of  the  Spirit.  The  disciples  were 
immersed  into  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  abundance  of  his  gifts  ;  but 
they  were  literally  covered  with  the  appearance  of  wind  and 
fire."  .  .  . 

"Now  though  there  was  no  dipping  of  them,  yet,  as  they  were 
completely  surrounded  by  the  wind  and  fire,  by  the  catachrestic 
mode  of  speech  which  I  before  explained,  they  are  said  to  be 
immersed."  .  .  . 


92  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

"Air  and  fire  were  elements  of  the  baptism  that  took  place  on 
the  cla\^  of  Pentecost,  but  the}^  are  not  the  elements  in  the  stand- 
ing ordinance  of  Christ They  who  were  baptized  on  that 

day  in  wind  and  fire,  had  been  baptized  before."  .  .  . 

"'A  dry  baptism  1'  exclaims  Dr.  Wardlaw.  Be  patient,  Dr. 
Wardlaw;  was  not  the  Pentecost  baptism  a  dry  baptism?  Chris- 
tian baptism  is  not  a  dry  baptism  ;  but  the  baptism  of  Pentecost, 
and  of  the  Israelites  in  the  Red  Sea,  were  dry  baptisms." 

"The  baptism  did  not  consist  in  the  mode  of  the  coming  of  the 
flame,  but  in  the  being  under  it.  The}^  were  sun-ounded  by  the 
wind  and  covered  by  the  fire  above.  They  were  therefore  buried 
in  wind  and  fire"  (pp.  104-114). 

Criticism. 

1.  "The  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  a  figurative  expression,  ex- 
plicable on  the  principle  of  a  reference  to  immersion."  The  term 
"fio-urative"  is  without  well-defined  boundaries.  Its  use  is  often- 
times vague  and  unsatisfactory.  A  figurative  expression  is,  most 
naturally, one  which  is  designed  to  point  the  mind  to  the  "figure," 
form,  outline,  of  something  physical,  as  having  some  element  in 
common  with  and  expository  of  something  which  does  not  pertain 
to  physics.  "  A  wave  of  trouble  rolled  over  the  land  "  suggests  a 
resemblance  between  "trouble"  and  "the  land,"  such  as  is  found 
in  a  wave  of  water  rolling  broadl}^  and  resistlessly  over  the  ocean. 
"  He  has  dipped  into  mathematics  "  suggests  an  object  put  into 
a  fluid  for  a  moment  and  withdrawn.  What  is  momentary  and 
superficial  is  necessarily  limited  in  effect.  A  physical  dipping, 
therefore,  expounds  a  dipping  info  mathematics  as  a  study  limited 
in  time  and  attainment.  "  lie  is  immersed  in  thought "  suggests 
an  object  completely  covered.  Ilow  covered,  or  with  what  cov- 
ered, the  allusion  has  nothing  to  do  ;  the  covering  is  unlimited  in 
extent  and  in  time.  We  learn,  therefore,  that  "immersion  in 
thouijht  "  is  complete  engagedness  in  (not  aHsimilation  to)  think- 
ing to  the  exclusion  of  everything  else.  Such  usage  is  plainly 
and  designedly  figurative.  The  mind  is  unavoidably  led  to  the 
physical  allusion,  and  without  eff'ort  apprehends  the  reason  of  it. 

But  there  are  other  phrases  which  by  some  are  called  figurative 
with  less  obvious  propriety.  "The  peoi)le  are  enlightened;" 
"The  man  is  debased;"  "Imbued  with  love;"  "Endued  with 
wisdom;"  such  phrases  are  very  questionably  called  figurative. 


CRITICISM    OF    THE    THEORY    ON    PENTECOST    BAPTISM.     63 

They  may  be  all  traced  to  a  ph^'sical  origin,  but  not  one  in  ten 
thousand  does  so  trace  them  in  their  nseor  in  hearing  them  used. 
Indeed  "debase,"  "imbue,"  "endue,"  have  no  physical  use  in 
our  language,  and  a  merely  English  scholar  could  not  refer  to 
their  use  in  physics  to  aid  him  in  the  understanding  of  their 
actual  use.  In  the  Greek  language  jSanrcff/j-a  has  as  little  use  in 
physics  as  "imbue,"  "endue,"  have  in  English.  It  is  never  so 
used  in  the  New  Testament.  I  do  not  remember  any  such  usage 
in  Christian  Greek  writers;  and  it  does  not  appear  at  all  in  classic 
writings.  It  is  of  course  traceable  to  physics  through  the  verb, 
and  its  value  is  clearly  deducible  from  such  source  ;  but  when  it 
is  said  to  be  used  "  figuratively,"  the  terra  is  too  loose,  in  such 
application,  without  some  defining  explanation. 

The  phrase,  "baptism  of  the  Spirit,"  does  not  occur  in  Scrip- 
ture. "  The  baptism  of  John  "  is  of  frequent  occurrence,  and 
alwaj^s  means  the  baptism  proceeding  from  John  as  preacher  or 
administrator.  "  The  baptism  of  repentance  "  is  also  met  with, 
and  always  indicates  that  baptism  proceeding  from  repentance 
as  its  source.  "  The  baptism  of  the  Spirit,"  interpreted  by  par- 
allel phraseology  of  Scripture,  must  mean  that  baptism  of  which 
the  Spirit  is  the  teacher  or  the  executive ;  but  the  Scriptures  do 
not  represent  the  Spirit  as  a  teacher  of  a  baptism,  while  it  does 
represent  him  as  the  executor  of  baptism.  This  phrase,  therefore, 
can  only  represent  the  Spirit  as  the  executor  of  baptism.  But 
the  theory  teaches  a  baptism  in  the  Spirit  as  the  receiving  ele- 
ment, and  not  by  the  Spirit  as  the  executor ;  it  therefore  teaches 
a  doctrine  unknown  to  the  Scripture,  and  which  precludes  their 
use  of  the  phrase  "  baptism  of  the  Spirit." 

The  language  of  Dr.  Carson,  made  consistent  with  the  theory, 
would  read  thus :  "  The  dipping  in  the  Spirit  is  a  figurative  ex- 
pression, explicable  on  the  principle  of  a  reference  to  dipping." 
This,  as  Carsonism,  is  plain  enough.  It  refers  us  to  the  dipping 
(therefore  momentary  and  superficial  introduction)  of  an  object 
into  water  with  trivial  effect ;  therefore  it  teaches  us  that  Chris- 
tians are  momentarily,  superficially,  and  trivially,  brought  under 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit.  Such  baptism  may  suit  those  who 
believe  in  the  theory ;  it  will  not  suit  those  who  believe  in  the 
Bible. 

2.  "  This  "  (baptism  =  immersion  =  dipping)  "  represents  the 
abundance  of  the  gifts  and  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God."  A 
dipping  never  was  used  in  figure  and  never  can  rationally  be  so 


64  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

used  to  express  "abundance  of  gifts  and  influences."  Its  import 
is  the  riglit  opposite.  And  if  immersion  is  so  used,  in  figure,  it 
is  an  unusual  use.  It  may  express  covering,  and  so  quantity 
sufficient  for  such  purpose ;  but  this  is  a  very  different  conception 
from  "abundance  of  gifts  and  influences."  But  however  this  may 
be  it  is  of  no  help  to  the  theory,  for  in  its  vocabulary  "  immersion  " 
is  not  immersion^  but  a  dipping.  Baptism  is  never  used  to  ex- 
press "  abundance  ;"  its  idea  is  always  that  of  power.  A  cup  of 
wine  will  baptize  by  its  intoxicating  power;  a  draught  of  an  opiate 
will  baptize  by  its  soporific  power ;  a  dove-like  appearance  has 
jjower  symbolly  to  baptize ;  cloven  tongues  as  of  fire  have  power 
symbolly  to  baptize;  drops  of  water  have  power  symbolly  to  bap- 
tize. A  baptism  has  nothing  to  do  with  abundance,  but  is  a 
resultant  condition  effected  by  some  pervading,  assimilating,  and 
controlling  influence.  "Abundance"  belongs  to  pouring^  and  not 
to  dipping  or  baptism.  And  in  this  connection  the  idea  origin- 
ates in,  and  is  borrowed  from,  the  '■'' 2iOuring  out  of  the  Spirit." 

3.  "  That  which  is  immersed  in  a  liquid  is  completely  subjected 
to  its  influence  and  imbued  with  its  virtues ;  so  to  be  immersed 
in  the  Spirit  represents  the  subjection  of  soul,  body,  and  spirit  to 
his  influence." 

If  Dr.  Carson  used  language  at  its  true  value,  and  used  it  cou- 
sistentl}^,  and  there  was  any  such  statement  in  the  Scripture  as 
"immersed  in  the  Spirit,*'  then  this  language  would  express  im- 
portant truth,  and  the  theory  would  be  rejected  as  "Nehushtan." 
But  unhappily  none  of  these  things  are  true.  The  opportu- 
nity, however,  is  given  for  bringing  into  relief  some  things 
wliich  are  true.  (I.)  The  radical  difference  between  dip  and  im- 
merse precluding  their  interchangeability.  Dr.  Carson  saj's: 
"That  which  is  immersed  in  a  liquid  is  completely  subjected  to 
its  influence  and  imbued  with  its  virtues."  This  is  perfectly  true 
using  "immersed"  at  its  proper  value  ^  within  a  fluid  without 
limitation  of  time,  and  the  object  being  of  a  nature  adapted  to 
that  influence  or  virtue  belonging  to  the  liquid.  But  now  substi- 
tute for  "immersed"  dipped^  and  how  will  the  statement  appear? 
"That  which  is  dipped  in  a  liquid  is  completel}'  subjected  to  its 
influence  and  imbued  with  its  virtues."  Could  a  statement  be 
more  utterly  devoid  of  truth?  A  vegetable  "immersed"  (by  the 
force  of  the  word  without  limitation  of  time)  in  vinegar  becomes 
completely  sulyected  to  its  influence  and  imbued  with  its  virtues, 
and  is  thoroughly  changed  in  condition — converted  into  a  pickle. 


CRITICISM    OF    THE    THEORY    ON    PENTECOST    BAPTISM.     65 

Is  this  trueof  sivegetsibledijjped  (bj^tbe  force  of  the  word  limited 
to  momentary  continuance)  in  vinegar?  Is  it  completely  subject 
to  the  influence  of  the  vinegar,  imbued  with  its  virtues,  and  trans- 
formed into  a  pickle  ?  (2.)  The  shifting  in  argument  from  im- 
merse to  dip,  and  from  dip  to  immerse,  using  them  respectively 
in  their  distinctive  value  as  the  exigenc}^  of  the  case  may  de- 
mand, and  again  interchanging  them  as  though  they  had  no  dis- 
tinctive value,  'is  a  wrong  to  truth,  is  destructive  to  argumenta- 
tion, and  is  proof  of  the  falsity  of  the  cause  which  demands  such 
support.  But  such  shifting  runs  through  Dr.  Carson's  writings, 
and  constitutes  his  club  of  Hercules.  (8.)  But  this  statement  of 
Dr.  Carson  has  special  value  as  vindicating  a  radical  principle  in 
this  Inquiry.  It  has  been  insisted  upon  that  fian-i'^u}  did  not 
mean  to  dij),  that  it  did  make  demand  for  intusposition  without 
limitation  in  the  time  of  continuance.  It  has  farther  been  in- 
sisted upon  that  the  effect  of  such  intusposition  on  suitable  ob- 
jects was  to  bring  them  under  the  controlling  influence  of  the  in- 
vesting element  interpenetrating,  pervading,  assimilating,  and 
controlling,  or  (to  use  Dr.  Carson's  words)  "completely  subject- 
ing them  to  influence  of  the  liquid  and  imbuing  them  with  its 
virtues."  And  proof  has  been  adduced  that  on  this  basis  was 
grounded  a  secondary  usage  of /JaTmCw  in  which  the  investing  ele- 
ment disappeared,  and  a  condition  (the  result  of  some  pervading 
and  assimilating  influence)  was  directly  expressed.  Dr.  Carson 
now  admits  (to  the  destruction  of  a  dipping)  that  "complete  sub- 
jection to  influence  and  imbuing  with  virtues"  is  the  result  of  a 
baptized  condition,  and  he  expounds  the  baptism  under  consider- 
eration  as  one  in  which  no  dipping^  no  immersion,  is  to  be  found. 
Thus  the  radical  truths  developed  in  Classic  Baptism,  and  x^e- 
vealed  throughout  this  Inquiry,  are  vindicated  by  the  admissions 
of  Dr.  Carson,  and  a  secondary  usage  grounded  in  the  effect  of 
the  primary  is  established. 

4.  "  To  be  immersed  in  the  Spirit  represents  the  subjection  of 
soul,  body,  and  spirit  to  his  influence.  The  whole  man  is  sanc- 
tified." 

This  interpretation  again  subverts  the  theory :  (1.)  A  dipping 
cannot  subject  the  soul,  body,  and  spirit  to  any  influence.  (2.) 
If  "  immersion  in  the  Spirit  "  accomplishes  this  profound,  abid- 
ing, and  assimilative  change,  then  the  word  which  expresses  "  im- 
mersion in  the  Spirit "  cannot  express  dipping  in  water.     (3.) 

5 


66  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

While  the  Scriptures  do  not  teach  an  "  immersion  in  the  Spirit," 
they  do  teach  a  "baptism  into  repentance"  (e;?  /leravour^),  and  if 
Dr.  Carson  will  apply  his  exegesis  as  above,  he  will  find  all  so 
baptized  (not  dipped)  "completely  subjected  to  the  influence  of 
repentance  and  imbued  with  its  virtues."  The  Scriptures  also 
teach  a  baptism  (not  a  dipping)  "  into  the  rernission  of  sins  "  (e/? 
a<p£(nv  uimpTtcov)  by  which  the  baptized  (not  the  dipped)  are  "com- 
pleteh^  subjected  to  the  influence  of  the  remission  of  sins  and  im- 
bued with  its  virtues."  The  Scriptures  also  teach  a  baptism  "  into 
Christ"  (s!?  Xp:(7Tdv),  hy  which  the  baptized  (not  dipped)  are 
"completely  subjected  to  the  influence  of  Christ  our  Redeemer, 
and  imbued  with  his  virtues  "  as  the  Lord  our  Righteousness. 
These  baptisms  should  compensate  for  the  taking  away  from  the 
friends  of  the  theory  the  error  respecting  a  baptism  "zn  the 
Spirit,"  especially  as  these  baptisms  "into  repentance" — "into 
the  remission  of  sins" — "into  Christ" — are  all  baptisms  of  the 
Spirit,  so  that  instead  of  being  a  quiescent  medium  in  which  souls 
should  be  baptized  by  some  baptizer,  he  is  himself  the  active, 
mighty,  and  divine  Agent  b}'  whom  the  souls  of  men  are  baptized 
"  into  repentance,"  "  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  "  into  Christ." 

The  error  of  the  theory  is  still  farther  shown  by  the  statement  that 
the  one-  result  of  "  immersion  in  the  Spirit  "  is  "  Sanctification." 
If  there  were  such  a  thing  as  "  immersion  in  the  Holy  Spirit  "  the 
natural  result  would  be  (from  complete  subjection  to  such  influ- 
ence) "  Sanctification."  And  what  would  be  the  result  in  one  case 
must  of  necessity  be  the  result  in  every  case.  If  one  vegetable 
immersed  in  vinegar  becomes  a  pickle,  then  every  vegetable  im- 
mersed in  vinegar  becomes  a  pickle.  If  one  soul  baptized  into 
the  remission  of  sins  receives  forgiveness,  then  every  soul  bap- 
tized into  the  remission  of  sins  will  receive  forgiveness.  In  like 
manner  if  one  soul  is  baptized  "  in  the  Holy  Spirit  "  and  the  result 
is  "  Sanctification,"  so  every  soul  baptized  "  in  the  Holy  Spirit  " 
must  receive  "  Sanctification."  But  this  again  destroys  the  theory ; 
(I.)  In  general;  because  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  redemp- 
tion is  not  limited  to  Sanctification,  but  is  most  comprehensive 
and  varied,  "dividing  to  every  man,  severally,  as  he  will,"  and 
therefore  his  work  cannot  l)e  represented  as  an  "  immersion  in  the 
Spirit."  {'2.)  In  particular;  because  iu  the  baptism  before  us, 
which  Dr.  Carson  says  was  an  "  immersion  in  the  Spirit,"  the 
result  was  not  Sanctification,  but  "power  "/or  the  ApoMlcship 
and  (immediately)  the  power  "to  speak  with  tongues."    The  theory 


CRITICISM    OF    THE    THEORY    ON    PENTECOST    BAPTISM.      67 

is  not  only  erroneous,  but  it  is  pure  error  through  and  through. 
It  is  no  less  erroneous  in  the  application  of  true  principles  than  it 
is  in  the  making  of  false  definitions. 

5.  "  Believers  are  said  to  be  immersed  into  the  Spirk,  not 
because  there  is  anything  like  immer>iion  in  the  manner  of  the 
reception  of  the  Spirit,  but  from  the  resemblance  between  an 
object  immersed  in  a  fluid  and  the  Sanctification  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  body  and  the  faculties  of  the  soul." 

Observe  (1.):  The  shifting  from  "immersed  in  the  Spirit"  to 
"  immersed  into  the  Spirit."  This  is  far  from  being  a  trivial  mat- 
ter. It  is  not  only  erring  in  translation  (which  all  may  do),  but 
it  is  a  usurpation  of  that  language  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  es- 
tablished as  a  barrier  against  the  error  of  the  theory.  There  is  no 
such  language  in  the  history  of  the  work  of  redemption  as  baptism 
^Hnto  the  H0I3'  Spirit."  The  prepositions  dq  and  iv^  in  connection 
with  baptism  throughout  the  New  Testament,  are  used  with  a 
severe  discrimination  which  has  no  exception.  The  former  (e:?) 
is  invariably  employed  to  designate  the  receptive  element  (which 
is  always  ideal),  and  the  latter  (^v),  or  the  dative  alone,  is  always 
used  to  denote  the  agency,  whether  efficient  that  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  symbol  that  of  water.  This  discrimination  is  a  silent 
but  impressive  warning  against  confounding  what  God  has  dis- 
tinguished. But  the  theory  has  not  only  converted  the  Holy 
Spirit  into  a  receptive  medium  under  the  plea  that  iv  means  in^ 
but  having  done  this  is  dissatisfied  that  her  self-created  baptism 
should  stand  alone  bearing  a  mark  alien  from  all  divine  baptisms, 
and  so  has  displaced  Iv  (the  divine  mark  of  agency)  and  of  her 
own  will  has  substituted  et'?,  thus  taking  away  from  and  adding 
unto  the  word  of  God  in  most  vital  points.  Observe  (2.)  :  In  this 
unhappily  entitled  "  immersion  into  the  Spirit,"  there  is  "not  any- 
thing like  immersion  in  the  manner  of  the  reception  of  the  Spirit;" 
the  baptism  consists  solely  in  the  effect  i)roduced,  a  thorough 
change  of  condition,  namely,  "the  Sanctification  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  body  and  the  faculties  of  the  soul."  If  Dr.  Carson  had 
grasped  this  truth  and  followed  its  guidance  in  the  interpretation 
of  Classic  baptisms,  it  would  have  saved  him  and  his  friends  from 
whole  seas  of  bad  rhetoric  of  the  lake-frog-blood  class.  It  is  a 
master-key  truth,  that  in  Classic,  and  Jewish,  and  Christian  bap- 
tisms there  is  a  large  proportion  of  baptisms  in  which  "  there  is 
not  anything  like  immersion,"  but  solel}'  a  thorough  change  of 
condition  analogous  to  the  effect  produced  on  a  class  of  objects  by 


68  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

immersion  without  limit  of  time.  And  the  settled  establishment 
of  this  j)oint  will  be  an  adequate  issue  to  this  Inquiry.  But  ob- 
serve (3.) :  The  explanation  of  Dr.  Carson  lacks  both  correctness 
and  congruit}'.  If  "  believers  are  immersed  into  the  Spirit,"  then 
it  is  neither  correct  nor  congruous  to  speak  of  the  manner  in  which 
the}^  "  receive  the  Spirit."  Whatever  a  man  is  "  immersed  into  " 
receives  him,  not  he  it.  Blot  out  this  "  immersion  into  "  (and  in 
also)  which  is  not  in  the  Scriptures  and  which  is  a  burden  heavj^ 
to  be  borne  by  the  theory,  and  then  the  way  will  be  clear  to  speak 
of  "  the  manner  of  the  reception  of  the  Spirit "  when  baptized  by 
the  Spirit.  There  is  a  farther  error  and  incongruity  when  "  be- 
lievers are  said  to  be  immersed  in  the  Spirit  because  of  the  resem- 
blance between  an  object  immersed  in  a  fluid  and  the  Sanctification 
of  body  and  soul."  That  is  to  sa}^,  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  con- 
sists in  the  Sanctification  of  the  body  and  the  soul  without  having 
an3'thing  to  do  with  or  with  an3-thing  like  dipping  or  immersing, 
and  yet  this  is  called  baptism  because  of  its  resemblance  to  an  ob- 
ject immersed  in  a  fluid.  Is  not  tliis  on  its  face  incorrect  and  hope- 
lessly incongruous?  How  can  what  is  not  ("there  is  not  anything 
like  an  immersion  ")  resemble  that  which  is  =  "an  immersed  ob- 
ject"? Or,  is  the  baptism  (=  Sanctification)  like  "the  object" 
(a  rock)  apart  from  the  immersion  ?  This  is  impossible.  What 
then  is  meant?  Is  it  this,  Dr.  Carson  has  severely  condemned 
his  friends  for  admitting  that  an  effect  could  be  called  a  baptism  ; 
hut  here  he  is  brought  face  to  face  with  such  a  ba2)tism,  and  in 
his  extremity  he  shrinks  from  acknowledging  "eflfect"  (so  destruc- 
tive in  its  bearings)  and  writes  in  its  stead  "  immersion,"  logically 
meaning  the  effect  of  immersion  ?  Whether  Dr.  Carson  so  meant 
or  not  such  is  the  truth.  It  is  impossible  for  a  sane  man  to  talk 
of  a  resemblance  between  "  Sanctification  of  body  and  soul  "  and 
an  "  immersed  object."  Sujjpose  that  object  to  be  a  flint  rock  or 
a  mass  of  iron,  what  is  tlie  resemblance  to  a  Sanctified  body  and 
soul  ?  Who  has  the  courage  to  attempt  an  answer  ?  Resemblance 
to  an  ''^immersed  object"  must  be  abandoned.  Try  now  an  object 
whicli  is  capable  of  receiving  influence,  of  being  changed  in  con- 
dition, made  assimilant  to  the  characteristic  of  the  enveloping 
element;  for  example,  take  some  fruit  put  into  melted  sugar  a 
year  ago;  what  is  its  condition  now?  Is  it  not  penetrated,  per- 
vaded, and  assimilated  to  the  saccharine  characteristic  of  the 
element  in  which  it  has  been  immersed?  Is  not  its  condition  as 
fruit  thoroughly  changed?     Does  any  one  hesitate  to  recognize 


CRITICISM    OF    THE    THEORY    ON    PENTECOST    BAPTISM.     69 

the  resemblance  between  such  an  effect  produced  upon  the  fruit 
(thoroughly  changing  its  condition  by  an  influence  pervading  and 
controlling  it  by  its  own  characteristic)  and  the  effect  produced 
upon  the  soul,  thoroughly  changing  its  condition  by  an  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  pervading  and  controlling  all  its  faculties,  and 
making  them  subject  to  its  own  holy  characteristic  ?  The  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit,  then,  is  an  effect  produced  in  the  soul  without 
a  dipping,  without  an  immersing,  without  anything  like  either; 
but  which  is  like  the  effict  produced  on  certain'objects  by  baptism 
in  a  fluid  having  a  special  characteristic,  and  which  thus  receive 
and  are  made  assimilant  to  such  characteristic.  In  other  words, 
it  is  admitted  that  the  terms  baptize  and  baptism  have  ceased  to 
express  dipping,  or  immersing,  or  "anything  like"  them,  and 
does  directly  express  an  effect  like  to  the  effect  of  physical  bap- 
tism, in  ivhatever  way  such  effect  may  be  produced.  By  this  ad- 
mission (ianriZu)  and  fidnrcu  are  placed  side  by  side  as  to  the  ground 
of  their  secondary  usage.  The  former  laj-s  aside  its  modal  con- 
dition of  intusposition,  and  adopts  the  effect  of  such  intusposition 
on  a  certain  class  of  objects  as  a  secondary  meaning;  the  latter 
lays  aside  its  modal  action  of  dipping,  and  adopts  the  effect  of 
such  dipping  on  a  certain  class  of  objects  as  a  secondary  mean- 
ing. As  Dr.  Carson's  protest  against  the  rhetoric  of  his  friends 
which  would  dip  a  lake  into  drops  of  blood  was  triumphantly  suc- 
cessful, inducing  its  prompt  and  universal  abandonment  and  the 
establishment  of  a  secondary  meaning  for  (Sd-rcj  in  which  there 
was  no  dipping,  so  may  his  repudiation  of  "  anything  like  immer- 
sion "  in  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  prove  to  be  no  less  happy  in  its 
results,  and  relieving  his  friends  of  their  singular  rhetoric,  estab- 
lish among  them  a  secondary  meaning  for  jSaTzrcZw  in  which  "  any- 
thing like  immersion  "  shall  forever  pass  away. 

G.  "  But  though  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  figurative 
baptism  to  which  there  cannot  be  a  likeness  in  the  literal  bap- 
tism, yet  as  respects  the  transaction  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
there  was  a  real  baptism  in  the  emblems  of  the  Spirit.  The  dis- 
ciples were  immersed  into  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  abundance  of 
his  gifts ;  but  they  were  literally  covered  with  the  appearance  of 
wind  and  fire." 

(1.)  Dr.  Carson  has  admitted  that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is 
not  a  "  figure  "  of  dipping  or  immersing,  for  there  is  not  anything 
like  these  things  in  it ;  but  it  is  called  a  baptism  because  it  pro- 
duces an  effect  which  resembles  the  effect  produced  by  physical 


70  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

baptism.  These  effects  have  individual  differences,  yet  have  this 
common  feature,  namely,  a  thorough  change  of  condition  assimi- 
lant  to  the  characteristic  of  that  which  effects  such  change.  Now 
of  such  effect  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  not  a  "  figure,"  but  is  an 
exemplification.  It  is  therefore  a  real  baptism — not  changing  the 
condition  of  an  object  by  introducing  it  within  a  physical  cover- 
ing, nor  (what  is  a  very  different  thing)  the  condition  of  an  object 
through  an  influence  operating  by  means  of  a  physical  envelop- 
ment, but  changing  the  condition  of  an  object  in  like  character  as 
an  influence  operating  through  envelopment  changes  it,  develop- 
ing its  influence,  however,  in  other  ways  than  by  envelopment. 
Denying  therefore  that  any  envelopment,  real  or  imaginary,  exists 
in  these  baptisms  (the  correctness  of  which  denial  Dr.  Carson  ad- 
mits), and  aflflrming  that  the  name  applied  to  them  (baptism)  is 
derived  from  that  class  of  baptisms  in  which  the  envelopment  is 
only  a  means  to  an  end,  namel}',  assimilative  cliange,  we  farther 
affirm,  that  this  mode  (by  covering)  for  effecting  such  changes 
ceases  to  be  exclusive,  and  any  act  or  injiuence  competent  to  effect 
like  change  is  accepted  as  effecting  a  baptism.  The  thorough 
change  in  the  condition  of  the  soul,  effected  by  the  Hol}'^  Spirit 
assimilating  it  to  itself,  is  therefore  a  real  baptism,  and  is  not  "the 
figure  "  of  a  dipping,  or  an  immersion,  or  a  covering. 

(2.)  "  The  disciples  were  immersed  into  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the 
abundance  of  his  gifts." 

As  there  is  no  baptism  "  into  the  Holy  Spirit "  in  his  official 
working  in  the  scheme  of  redemption,  and  the  nature  of  his  rela- 
tion to  the  scheme  of  redemption  as  the  great  AVorker  in  the  souls 
of  men,  does  not  allow  of  his  being  regarded  as  a  quiescent  medium 
out  of  which  some  one  else  is  to  extract  virtue  by  putting  the  souls 
of  men  into  it,  this  statement  is  erroneous.  But  who  confers 
"  the  abundance  of  his  gifts  "?  Is  "it  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Then  the 
Holy  Spirit  "immerses  into  the  Holy  Spirit,"  for  this  immersion 
is  '•'■by  the  abundance  of  his  gifts."  This  is  not  the  wisdom  of 
the  Scriptures.  Does  some  one  else  bestow  "  the  abundance  of 
his  gifts  "?  Then  what  becomes  of  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 
In  this  statement  Dr.  Carson  is  leading  us  in  a  circle.  He  has 
already  told  us  that  "  immersion  in  the  Spirit  "  confers  "  abun- 
dance of  gifts  "  and  "  sanctifies  body,  soul,  and  spirit."  We  are 
now  told  that  "  abundance  of  gifts  "  previously  conferred  has  a 
power  to  "immerse  into  the  Spirit."  Error  cannot  square  with 
the  truth. 


CRITICISM    OF    THE    THEORY    ON    PENTECOST    BAPTISM.      71 

(3.)  "  There  was  a  real  baptism  in  the  emblems  of  the  Spirit. 
.  .  They  were  literally  covered  with  the  appearance  of  wind  and 
fire." 

(a.)  "  A  real  baptism  "  (!)  no  "  figure  "  here,  (b.)  "  In  the  em- 
iriems  of  the  Spirit."  There  were  no  "  emblems  of  the  Spirit " 
present  at  Pentecost.  The  Spirit  does  not  baptize  "  in  emblems." 
All  baptisms  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  real  baptisms  of  the  soul,  not 
coverings  of  the  body  in  "  sound  "  and  "  cloven  tongues."  The 
"sound  as  of  a  might3'  rushing  wind  "  proclaimed  the  presence  of 
the  Deity ;  and  the  "  cloven  tongues  as  of  fire  "  symbolized  the 
gift  conferred  to  speak  in  other  languages.  The  "  appearance  as 
of  a  dove  "  descending  and  remaining  on  the  "  beloved  Son  "  when 
he  was  baptized  "without  measure"  by  the  Spirit,  was  an  emblem 
of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  wind-sound  and  cleft  tongues  are  not.  (c.) 
"  They  were  literally  covered  with  the  appearance  of  wind  and 
fire."  If  there  had  been  but  one  Bible  in  the  world,  and  that 
under  lock  and  key  in  Dr.  Carson's  study,  this  statement  might 
have  received  some  credence,  or,  if  there  were  but  one  intellect 
(though  erratic)  in  the  world,  and  from  its  supreme  wisdom  had 
come  such  announcement,  the  remainder  of  a  witless  race  might 
have  accepted  this  "  real  baptism  "  in  "  the  appearance  of  wind 
and  fire."  As,  however,  there  are  other  copies  of  the  Scriptures 
in  the  world,  and  happily  so  written  that  "  a  fool  may  not  err  "  in 
such  a  case,  we  withhold  our  faith  from  this  "real"  "appearance" 
baptism. 

7.  "Now,  though  there  was  no  dipping  of  them,  yet  as  they 
were  completely  surrounded  by  the  wind  and  fire,  by  the  cata- 
chi-estic  mode  of  speech  which  I  before  explained,  they  are  said 
to  be  immersed." 

On  reading  such  a  statement  there  is  a  natural  impulse  to  ask : 
Was  it  propounded  in  a  lunatic  asylum  ?  Solomon  in  one  of  his 
Proverbs  uiiites  with  the  common  sense  of  all  ages  to  forbid  a 
formal  answer  to  such  extravagance.  One  element  in  it,  however, 
may  be  noticed.  It  is  this :  Dipping,  as  a  modal  act,  is  the  theo- 
retic sine  qua  non  of  baptism  with  Dr.  Carson.  That  this  is  so, 
is  placed  beyond  all  doubt  by  the  necessity  felt  by  Dr.  Carson  to 
make  out  a  modal  dipping  in  a  "  real  baptism  "  where  there  was 
claimed  to  be  an  unquestionable  "  surrounding  "  and  "  covering." 
With  some  this  would  have  been  sufficient  to  vindicate  a  baptism, 
but  not  so  with  Dr.  Carson ;  he  insists  that  "  to  baptize  "  is  "  to 
dip  and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek  literature,"  and  there- 


72  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

fore  he  undertakes  to  make  out  a  dipping  where  there  is  confess- 
edly none,  and  this  he  does  by  his  old  and  trusty  friend  Cata- 
chresis,  whom  we  have  heretofore  met  with  as  "  the  Old  Guard,* 
reserved  for  dire  exigencies.  We  call  attention  to  the  fact,  that 
it  is  out  of  the  bowels  of  dip  that  Dr.  Carson  has  drawn  the  fila- 
ment with  which  he  has  woven  his  theory,  because  this  little  word 
has  suddenly  fallen  into  such  disrepute  that  the  Baptist  Quarterly 
denounces  it,  and  enters  a  denial  that  Dr.  Carson  ever  believed 
in  it.  The  reed  on  which  we  once  leaned  when  breaking  and 
piercing  our  hand  is  condemned  and  rejected  as  worthless.  It  is 
not  well,  however,  in  discarding  a  trusted  friend  to  say — We  never 
leaned  upon  you.  There  is  another  point  hardly  second  in  im- 
portance to  this,  which  is  developed  in  this  same  sentence.  It  is 
this:  the  use  of  dip  and  immerse  as  equivalents,  having  precisely 
the  same  meaning.  We  are  told,  "  though  there  was  no  dipping 
yet,  by  Catachresis^  they  are  said  to  be  immersed  "  =  dipped.  A 
dipping  was  what  was  lacking ;  a  dipping  was  what  Dr.  Carson 
set  out  to  find,  and  under  the  guidance  of  Catachresis  he  finds  it 
in  "immersed."  But  in  a  previous  sentence  Dr.  Carson  has  used 
"immersed  in  the  Spirit"  not  in  the  sense  of  dipping  (=  momen- 
tary introduction  and  withdrawal),  but  in  the  sense  of  unlimited 
continuance.  Thus  a  claim  is  set  up  for  a  word  to  mean  both 
momentariness  and  continuance  unlimited  only  by  the  eternal 
ages.  The  legs  of  such  a  theory  are  too  unequal  to  allow  it  to 
walk  erect. 

8.  "  The  baptism  did  not  consist  in  the  mode  of  the  coming 
of  the  flame,  but  in  the  being  under  it.  They  were  surrounded 
by  the  wind,  and  covered  by  the  fire  above.  They  were  there- 
foi'e  buried  in  wind  and  fire." 

Dr.  Carson  was  certainly  something  more  than  an  extraordinary 
man.  If  there  is  a  second  friend  of  the  theory  in  the  Old  World  or 
the  New  who  would  venture  to  write  these  three  sentences  it  would 
be  a  pity,  for  no  wonder  would  be  left  to  be  expended  on  him. 
Times  Avithout  number  we  have  been  told  by  Dr.  Carson  and  his 
friends,  that  we  show  the  greatest  stupidity  in  talking  about  "  the 
mode "  of  baptism.  With  a  knowledge  exhaustive  of  all  truth 
upon  the  subject  we  have  been  informed,  that  baptism  itself  is 
mode  and  nothing  but  mode ;  and  to  talk  about  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism is  as  witless  as  to  talk  about  "the  mode  of  dipping."  But 
our  Instructors  now  tell  us,  that  they  have  discovered  a  "  baptism 
which  does  not  consist  in  the  mode  of  the  coming  of  the  flame, 


TRANSLATION.  73 

but  in  the  being  under  it."  Well ;  may  a  disciple  inquire  about 
"the  dipping"?  That,  I  believe,  does  not  mean  "being  under  a 
flame."     Oh!  "  Catachresis"  will  attend  to  that. 

"  They  were  surrounded  by  the  wind,"  although  there  was  no 
"  wind  ; "  "  and  covered  by  the  fire  above,"  although  there  was 
just  as  little  "fire"  as  there  was  wind,  "therefore  they  were 
buried  in  wind  and  fire"  ! !  !  Well,  no  doubt  just  as  the  naked- 
ness of  an  African  prince  is  "buried"  out  of  sight  when  he  goes 
abroad  regally  attired  in  a  "  covering  of  wind  "  and  "under  "a 
flaming  umbrella.  The  baptism  is  remarkable  as  Dr.  Carson  puts 
it;  it  would  be  still  more  remarkable  if  it  was  found  in  the  Bible ; 
but  happily  neither  it  nor  an}'  element  as  an  apology  for  it  is  to 
be  found  there.  This  peerless  advocate  of  the  theorj^  asks  per- 
mission of  none  in  heaven  or  on  earth  to  mould  the  language  of 
Scripture  to  suit  his  necessities  any  more  than  to  call  on  "  Cat- 
achresis "  to  help  his  theory  out  of  difficulties. 

I  conclude  this  examination  by  a  quotation  from  President 
Halley,  equally  accomplished  as  a  writer  and  a  scholar.  "  Dr. 
Carson  continues  (p.  110) :  '  The  wind  descended  to  fill  the  house, 
that  when  the  house  was  filled  with  the  wind,  the  disciples  might 
be  baptized  with  it.'  This  philosophy  of  a  house  full  of  wind  is 
not  of  Scripture,  but  of  Dr.  Carson,  I  would  have  skeptics  take 
notice,  lest  they  should  profanely  ask,  was  it  ever  empt}'  of  wind  ? 
or  if  there  was  more  than  usual,  what  kept  the  building  together  ? 
'  Their  baptism  consisted  in  their  being  totally  surrounded  with 
the  wind,  not  in  the  manner  in  which  the  wind  came.'  Of  course 
he  means  came  upon  them.  Will  3'ou  believe  me,  gentle  reader, 
that  his  book  is  written  to  prove  that  to  baptize  is  a  modal  verb, 
referring  exclusively  to  the  manner  in  which  the  action  is  per- 
formed ;  the  manner  in  which  the  wind,  or  water,  or  baptizing 
fluid  incloses  a  person,  by  his  being  put  into  it,  and  not  by  its 
coming  upon  him  ?  " 

The  lake-dipping  into  a  frog's  blood  by  Dr.  Gale  is  hard,  round 
common  sense  compared  with  this  chaffy,  catachrestic  dipping  of 
the  Apostles  into  "  sound  and  cloven  tongues"  by  Dr.  Carson. 

Translation. 

"John  truly  baptized  (vdari)  with  water;  but  ye  shall  be  bap- 
tized (^1^  llveu/xaTc  "Ayiio)  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  translation  of  h  nvtoiiazt  "Ayiu)  cannot  be  baptized  "  in  the 
Holy  Ghost"  (making  this  Divine  person  the  figurative  recipient 


74  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  the  Apostles),  because:  1.  It  is  not  the  grammatical  form  to 
express  such  idea.  In  Classic  Greek,  when  an  object  not  already 
in  a  condition  of  baptism  is  spoken  of  as  to  be  baptized,  the  re- 
ceiving element  is  invariably  expressed  in  the  Accusative  with 
elq.  2.  When  iv  with  the  encompassing  element  in  the  Dative,  is 
used  by  the  Classics,  it  invariably  expresses  that  the  object  is 
already'  in  a  baptized  condition,  and  so  continues  without  limit- 
ation of  time.  3.  When  the  Dative  without  a  preposition  is  used 
by  the  Classics  (they  never  use  a  preposition)  it  invariabl}'  ex- 
presses the  agency  by  which  the  baptism  is  effected,  and  not  the 
receiving  element  into  which  the  baptized  object  passes.  4.  In 
the  New  Testament  when  the  agency  (symbol  or  real)  and  the 
receiving  element  (which  is  never  physical)  ai'e  both  stated,  the 
agency  is  invariably  expressed  by  the  Dative  (with  or  without 
iv),  and  the  receiving  element  by  the  Accusative  with  eic;.  5. 
When  the  Dative  (with  or  without  tv)  appears  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment without  the  Accusative  and  its  preposition,  it  of  necesaily 
must  (both  b}'  Classic  and  New  Testament  usage)  express  the 
agency  effecting  the  baptism  or  sj^mbolizing  the  baptism  effected. 
Where  the  receiving  element  has  been  previously  stated,  we  are 
under  obligation  to  supplj',  by  ellipsis,  such  element  as  stated, 
with  the  Accusative  and  its  preposition,  in  all  like  baptisms ;  but 
when  the  baptism  is  special  in  its  character,  and  the  Dative  only 
appears,  we  are  not  under  obligation  or  necessity  to  construct 
any  receiving  element  by  supplying  a  verbal  form  in  the  Accus- 
ative with  £fc,  because  the  agency  and  the  attending  circumstances 
will  always  indicate  the  nature  of  the  baptism.  The  Classics 
never  supply  a  receiving  element  with  the  Dative.  They  use  this 
case  in  connection  with  baptisms  of  the  second  class,  expressing 
thorough  change  of  condition  without  envelopment.  The  Scrip- 
tures so  use  it.  It  is  the  Dative  only  {Iv  vdazc,  vSuzi,  supplied  by 
ellipsis,  John  could  baptize  in  no  other  way  but  symbolly)  which 
appears  in  the  baptism  of  Jesus  by  John.  The  nature  of  the  case 
and  positive  statement  showing  that  it  was  a  rite  exhibiting  a 
covenant  baptism  engaging  "to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  In  the 
baptism  of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  this  Divine  agent  appears 
in  the  Nominative  (=  instrumental  Dative)  and  the  nature  of  the 
baptism  is  indicated  by  the  nature  of  the  case  and  by  positive 
statement,  showing  it  to  be  a  measureless  Divine  influence  qual- 
ifying for  the  wondrous  work  of  redemption.  So,  in  the  baptism 
under  consideration  there  is  no  receptive  element  stated,  nor  is 


TRANSLATION.  75 

any  needed;  the  agency  expressed  in  iv  nvev/xazc  'Ayioj,  the  persons 
to  be  baptized,  the  end  in  view,  leaves  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  baptism;  it  was  a  thorough  change  of 
condition  by  the  Holy  Ghost  qualifying  them  for  the  Apostleship. 
6.  This  phrase  cannot  denote  a  receptive  element  "  in"  which 
souls  are  to  be  baptized  ;  because  in  that  case  there  could  be  no 
diverse  baptisms  of  the  Spirit.  All  baptized  in  the  same  element 
must  receive  the  same  baptism,  just  as  all  vegetables  baptized  in 
vinegar  must  receive  the  same  baptism,  and  all  fruit  baptized  in 
melted  sugar  must  receive  the  same  baptism.  But  the  baptisms 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  diverse  in  their  nature ;  as,  for  example, 
the  baptism  of  "the  beloved  Son"  was  diverse  in  its  nature  from 
that  baptism  received  by  publicans  and  sinners ;  and  the  bap- 
tism received  by  the  Apostles  was  widely  diverse  from  both  ;  and 
the  baptism  of  all  Christ's  people  (ci^  ivc  II>£u;j.aTc  ei<;  iv  (Tajij.a)  "by 
one  Spirit  into  one  body"  has  diversity  as  its  very  essence. 
Therefore  h  Ihsu/iart  'Aytoj  cannot  possibly  be  the  element  in  which 
the  souls  of  men  are  baptized.  7.  This  cannot  be  so,  because  it 
subverts  the  revealed  economy  of  redemption.  The  third  Person 
in  the  Godhead  is  everywhere  in  Scripture  represented  as,  em- 
phatically, the  Agent.  It  is  through  his  constant,  universal,  and 
might}'  working  in  the  wondrous  incarnation  itself  (Matt.  1  :  18, 
Luke  1  :  35),  through  all  the  life  and  death  of  the  incarnate  Re- 
deemer, and  among  the  souls  of  men,  that  the  fruits  of  the  in- 
carnation are  secured.  All  this  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  is 
swept  away  by  the  idea  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  Bethesda's  pool 
awaiting  some  one  to  bring  into  it  the  spiritually  halt,  and  lame, 
and  blind,  and  who  without  such  helper  must  remain  a  long,  long 
time  "  in  that  case."  8.  The  translation  cannot  be  "  ^?^  the  Holy 
Ghost "  and  accord  with  the  principle  recognized  in  the  Baptist 
translation  of  Matt.  9  :  34,  iv  rw  ap^^ovrt,  through  the  prince  of  the 
devils,  with  this  note:  "  'i-V  with  dative  of  person  denotes  the  one 
in  whom  resides  the  power  or  authority  by  which  a  thing  is  done  ; 
hence  by  or  through;^''  and  Matt.  12:27,  ^'' iv  BssXZsiSobX,  through 
Beelzebub ; "  and  v.  28,  "  iv  Uvsufxan  dsou,  through  the  Spirit  of 
God,"  referring  for  vindication  to  the  above-quoted  note  on  Matt. 
*9  :  34.  The  translator  of  Luke  11:15,'  in  a  note  quotes  these 
passages  and  says,  "  they  should  all  be  translated  &?/."  This 
principle  must  be  abandoned,  or  the  Personality  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  must  be  denied  b}'^  translating  "  iv  nvsufian  'Aytuj  in  the 
Holy  Ghost."    And  in  denying  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 


76  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

here,  there  must  be  a  reconciliation  with  the  affirmation  of  their 
associate  translator  of  Acts,  that  "  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  third 
Person  in  the  Trinitj'^,  is  here  designated,"  as  well  as  the  multi- 
plied translations  of  the  same  phrase  ("  hy  the  Holy  Ghost ") 
throughout  their  New  Testament. 

We  adoringly  recognize  the  third  Person  of  the  Godhead  in 
this  great  work,  and  translate  in  accordance  herewith  and  with 
all  other  related  considerations — "Ye  shall  be  baptized  hy  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

The  Bwptizer. 

The  original  author  of  this  baptism  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
the  executive  agent  is  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  giver  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  the  Father ;  so  that,  in  varying  relations,  the  entire 
deity.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  is  engaged  in  this  baptism, 
which  is  to  "endue  with  power"  these  men  to  lay  the  foundations 
of  that  kingdom  which  is  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  to  the 
dominion  of  which  there  shall  be  no  end.  This  truth  is  evolved 
by  the  following  passages:  Luke  24:49,  "I  send  {^^a-airTilXw') 
the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  {im)  you,  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city 
of  Jerusalem  until  ye  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high."  This 
promise  is  repeated  by  this  same  writer  in  Acts  1:4,5:  "He 
commanded  them  that  they  should  not  depart  from  Jerusalem, 
but  wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father  which  3^e  have  heard  of 
me ;  for  ...  ye  shall  be  baptized  {b^  Ihevimn  '^Ayioj)  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  not  many  da3-s  hence ;"  v.  8,  "  Ye  shall  receive  (duvafxcv) 
power  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  (roD  "Aywu  flveu/jLaTuq)  has  come 
upon  you  ;"  2  :  4,  "And  they  were  all  filled  (HveufxaToq  "Aycou)  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  as  (rd  IJvsiJ/xa)  the  Holy  Ghost 
gave  them  utterance  ;"  v.  33,  "  This  Jesus  ...  at  the  right  hand 
of  God  being  exalted,  and  the  promise  (rou  '  AyUm  Uvsvuaroq)  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  being  received,  from  "  (-«/;a  hy  the  side  of^  where 
Jesus  stands.  Acts  7:55;  see  Harrison,  Greek  Prej^os.,  pp.  372-4) 
"the  Father"  {zoo  7ra-/j()?, Gen., whence  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds), 
"  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear."  In  view  of 
such  statements,  how  can  the  personality  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son  be  retained  while  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  converted  into* 
"abstract  spirit,"  "essence  of  spirit,"  "holy  spirit,"  "a  holy 
spirit,"  "influence?"  Does  not  the  Nominative  announce  the 
Agent  having  power  to  baptize  ?  Does  not  the  Genitive  announce 
the  Agent  whence  the  power  to  baptize  proceeds  ?     Does  not  the 


THE    BAPTIZER.  77 

Dative  and  iv  announce  the  Agent  in  whom  the  power  to  baptize 
resides  ?  Does  not  the  ai-ticle  abound  ?  Is  not  its  absence  in  the 
presence  of  a  preposition  just  as  it  ought  to  be  ?  Does  not  'Ayiou 
demonstrate  the  presence  of  Him  of  whom  Jesus  said, "  There  is 
none  good  (H0I3')  but  one,  that  is  God?"  What  objection  can 
there  be  to  the  interchange,  or  to  the  use  as  equivalents,  of  "  the 
promise,"  "the  gift,"  " tlie  power,"  and  "the  H0I3'  Ghost,"  in 
whom  they  meet,  on  whom  they  depend,  and  without  whom  they 
cannot  exist  ? 

An  ancient  oracle,  it  is  said,  pi'omised  to  a  defeated  people  that 
if  they  would  ask  a  Leader  from  a  neighboi'ing  state  they  would 
receive  power  to  conquer.  The  request  was  made,  a  Leader  was 
given,  and  power  to  conquer  was  secured.  What,  now,  hinders 
"promise,"  "power,"  "gift,"  "Leader,"  from  being  interchanged, 
or  used  as  equivalents,  in  speaking  of  this  transaction  ?  Why  not 
say  "the  promise"  (=the  Leader)  came?-  "the  gift"  (=the 
Leader)  endued  them  with  power?  "the  power"  (=the  Leader) 
secured  the  victory  ?  Do  not  promise,  gift,  and  power,  meet  in 
the  Leader,  go  out  from  the  Leader,  perish  apart  from  the  Leader  ? 
And  what  is  "the  promise"  of  Christ,  or  "the  gift"  of  the  Father, 
or  "  the  power "  of  the  Apostles,  apart  from  the  living,  divine 
Hol}^  Ghost  who  works  in  all,  through  all,  over  all,  and  without 
whom  we  can  do  nothinsr  ? 


'Tdarc — 'Ev  Tlvsuiiart  '^Aytai. 

The  use  of  the  preposition  iv  with  Uvsu/mn  'Ayio)  in  connection 
with  baptisms  b}^  the  Holy  Ghost  is  invariable,  while  the  use  of 
kv  with  vdari  in  symbol-water  baptisms  is  variable.  Can  Q.ny 
reason  be  assigned  for  such  varying  usage  ?  This  may  l)e  said  : 
The  relation  between  John  (the  usage  only  appears  in  connection 
with  John,  although  the  truth  applies  to  all  others)  and  "  water," 
and  the  relation  between  Jesus  and  "the  Hoty  Ghost "  is  not  the 
same.  John's  qualification  for  his  ministry  was  in  no  wise  de- 
pendent upon  iv  vHart. ;  this  was  derived  from  his  being  "  h  -'^eoiiart 
y.di  (^uvatiEi  ' HXioo  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias."  John  was 
always  "in"  this  spiritual  condition,  and  hy  it  he  fulfilled  his 
ministry.  The  omission  of  {h)  the  preposition  making  the  state- 
ment, "  he  shall  go  before  Him  hy  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias," 
would  be  quite  another  statement  from  that  of  the  Bible,  "  he 
shall  go  before  Him  tn"  (and  thus  invested  with)  "the  spirit  and 


78  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

power  of  Elias."  The  preposition  cannot  be  omitted.  But  the 
use  of  the  preposition  (h),  in  connection  with  water,  rests  on 
quite  another  basis.  It  is  simply  a  Hebraistic  (also,  limitedly, 
Classical)  use  expressive  of  instrumentality.  This  usage  is  so 
common,  that  the  Baptist  Bible  translators  recognize  it  and  so 
translate  it  nearly  forty  times  in  the  single  Gospel  of  Matthew. 
There  is,  then,  nothing  to  require  a  uniform  use  of  h  vdart ;  on 
the  contrar}',  we  would  look  for  its  abandonment  by  a  more 
Greekly  writer.  And  such  is  the  fact.  Luke,  less  affected  by 
Hebraism,  never  uses  the  preposition,  in  this  connection,  in  his 
Gospel  or  in  the  Acts.  Thus  the  use  and  the  disuse  is  fully 
accounted  for,  and  under  such  circumstances  that  both  use  and 
disuse  establishes  the  instrumental  sense.  But  the  Lord  Jesus 
has  nothing  to  do  with  "water,"  and  his  ministrj'^  has  no  concern 
with  iv  as  used  in  that  relation;  but  the  fulfilment  of  his  ministry 
begins  and  ends  with  h  Uveoiiart  ^Aytw;  the  relation,  therefore, 
of  tliis  preposition  is  with  the  usage  developed  in  iv  nvshfj-an  xai 
dova-iiet  ^HXiou^  and  not  with  the  very  different  usage  in  h  vduTt, 
where  symbol  agency  is  directly  expressed,  and  in  no  wise  de- 
pendent on  the  idea  of  antecedent  inness.  For  a  reason,  then, 
as  obvious  as  that  which  allows  the  disuse  of  ^i^  in  connection  with 
vdan,  the  persistent  use  of  this  preposition  is  demanded  in  con- 
nection with  Ihe'j/iarc  'A/coj,  as  it  is  demanded  in  connection  with 
kv  7tvs'j,'j.art  xrn  8uvd;j.£c  ^HXiou.  But  inasmuch  as  this  phrase  suggests 
inness  with  a  view  to  a  consequent  investiture  with  power,  it  will 
follow,  that  under  diverse  circumstances,  the  one  idea  or  the  other 
will  emerge  into  greater  prominence,  and  the  translation  be  fitW 
with,  6//^  or  in.  This  is  exemplified  in  Luke  4:14,  "Jesus  re- 
turned (iv  TTj  duvd/iec  ruu  Uveuimroq)  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit,"  as 
compared  with  the  passage  before  us,  "Ye  shall  be  baptized  {Iv 
Ihtuimri  ' Ayioj)  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  whom  Jesus  is,  and  by  whom 
therefore  he  accomplishes  his  work." 

TJie  Baptifiin — lis  Emblem. 

The  specific  character  of  this  baptism  is  not  indicated  by  the 
statement  that  it  was  "  (Iv  Ihsofuirt '  AyUp)  by  the  Hol}^  Ghost."  The 
Holy  Ghost  is  an  Agent  most  miglity,  most  wise,  and  of  infinite 
resources.  Therefore  his  baptisms  (thorougli  changes  of  spiritual 
condition  assimilated  to  his  own  wisdom,  or  power,  or  other  char- 
acteristic entering  into  his  hol}^  nature)  are  greatly  varied.     Tliis 


THE    BAPTISM — ITS    EMBLEM.  79 

phrase  can  on]}^  of  itself,  give  some  general  character  to  the  bap- 
tism. It  was  not  the  ordinary  Christian  baptism.  This  is  a  matter 
of  universal  admission.  The  friends  of  the  theory  not  only  do  not 
claim  the  presence  of  a  dipping  into  water,  but  admit  that  there 
was  not  anything  like  it.  Dr.  Carson  will  not  even  invoke  the  aid 
of  Catachresis  to  make  this  something  out  of  nothing.  He  admits 
(what  this  Inquiry  has  proved  times  without  number)  that  it  was 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  baptism  consisting  in  a  thorough 
change  of  condition  resulting  from  "  subjection  to  influence  and 
imbuing  with  its  virtues."  Those  who  reject  the  theory  declare 
that  it  could  not  be  an  initiatory  baptism,  because  that  is  entirely 
unsuitable  to  the  position  of  those  who  had  not  only  been  long 
the  disciples  of  Christ,  but  also  his  chosen  Apostles.  Dr.  Carson 
says  it  was  a  baptism  of  Sanctiflcation,  "  thoroughly  Sanctifying 
body,  soul,  and  spirit."  This  he  grounds  on  the  idea  that  there 
was  a  baptism  "  in  "  and  "  into  the  Holy  Spirit."  This  has  been 
shown  not  to  be  true,  and  with  the  foundation  destroyed  that 
which  is  built  upon  it  must  fall.  But  this  is  farther  disproved  as 
being  entirely  inadequate  to  fit  for  the  Apostleship.  No  man  by 
mere  sanctification  could  be  fitted  to  be  an  Apostle.  Stephen 
was  a  man  "  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  but  he  was  not  an  Apostle, 
nor  is  there  any  evidence  to  show  that  he  was  fitted  to  be  one. 

The  specialty  of  this  baptism  consisted  in  the  fitting  those  who 
received  it  for  the  Apostleship.  This  is  evident  from  the  promise 
made  to  those  chosen  for  this  office — Luke  24  :  49,  "  Behold  I  send 
the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  j^ou  ;  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of 
Jerusalem,  until  ye  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high ;"  from 
the  express  statement  in  Acts  1  :  2,  4,  5,  that  these  words  con- 
tained a  command  addressed  to  the  Apostles,  and  a  promise  of 
baptism  b}^  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  (v.  8)  was  to  endue  them  with 
"power  "  for  their  wonderful  work.  Farther  evidence  is  found  in 
the  accomplished  facts  ;  they  did  wait  at  Jerusalem,  they  did  "re- 
ceive the  promise  of  the  Father,"  that  promise  was  "sent"  by 
Jesus,  they  were  "  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  they  were  "  en- 
dued with  power,"  they  did  enter  upon  their  work,  and  from  that 
hour  they  were  thoroughly  changed  in  their  spiritual  condition  as 
qualified  Witnesses  for  Christ,  and  endowed  with  every  requisite 
necessary  to  discharge  the  high  duties  of  the  Apostleship. 

Emblem.  This  interpretation  of  the  specialty  of  this  baptism  is 
confirmed  by  the  emblem  of  it.  Dr.  Carson  speaks  of  more  than 
one  emblem — the  emblems  of  this  baptism  =  "  wind  and  fire." 


80  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

But  who  ever  heai'd  of  diverse  emblems  being  employed  to  denote 
the  same  baptism  ?     This  is  like  the  drinking  from  a  cup  and  the 
dipping  into  water  so  incongruously  introduced  into  the  baptism 
of  the  Redeemer.     There  could  be  no  dipping  in  a  "  cup,"  and  so 
water  is  introduced  to  make  up  the  deficiency.    But  if  Dr.  Carson 
had  remembered  his  present  admission  as  to  this  Pentecostal  bap- 
tism, he  would  have  understood  that  no  dipping  was  necessary  to 
a  baptism,  and  that  drinking  from  a  cup  had  a  potency  "to  sub- 
ject to  influence  and  imbue  witji  the  virtue  "  of  its  contents.    But 
there  is  reluctance  to  part  with  an  old  friend.     And  as  "  nothing 
like  dipping"  could  be  found  in  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  it  must 
be  found  in  something  related  to  it.     But  "'the  fire"  (?)  is  no 
larger  than  a  cup  and  will  not  answer.     The  "  wind  "  (?)  then 
must  be  introduced  as  "  sound  "  is  too  unsubstantial.    It  is  made 
to  fill  all  the  house.     This  is  enough  (much  wind)  for  a  dipping, 
at  least  by  Catachresis,  for  there  is  none  in  fact ;  but  it  will  not 
answer  for  the  human  addendum  emblem  wholly  to  exclude  that 
of  divine  provision,  therefore  "  the  fire  "  (?)  rather  ornamental 
than  useful,  for  the  dipping  by  Catachresis  is  already  complete  in 
the  house  full  of  "wind"  (?),  is  made  quite  superfluously  to  rest 
above  the  top  of  the  head.     This  richness  of  invention,  however, 
must  fail  after  all.     There  is  no  "  wind  ;"  there  is  no  "  fire."    We 
must,  therefore,  be  what  most  persons  have  been,  content  with  a 
single  emblem  for  a  single  thing,  even  such  as  the  divine  wisdom 
has  provided,  namely,  "cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire."    If  no  dip- 
ping of  the  Apostles  can  be  accomplished  in  these  "  tongues," 
then  we  must  bear  the  disappointment  in  the  case  of  the  emblem 
as  we  have  already  had  to  do  in  the  case  of  the  reality.     We  dis- 
miss, then,  this  "  Curiosity  of  Literature  "  for  something  of  more 
practical  value.    The  instruction  which  is  furnished  by  this  divinely 
appointed  emblem  is  of  no  small  value:   1.  It  teaches  us  in  the 
clearest  manner  that  this  baptism  was  one  qualifj-ing  for  the  Apos- 
tleship,  because  it  emblemizes  ("  cloven  tongues  ")  one  of  the 
principal  requisites  for  that  office  (the  power  to  speak  in  other 
languages)  and  one  which  was  immediately  brought  into  requisi- 
tion— "We  do  ever}^  man  hear  in  his  own  tongue  in  which  he  was 
born."     2.  It  teaches  us  that  the  symbol  or  emblem  used  in  bap- 
tism lias  no  part  or  lot  in  a  dipping,  or  immersing,  or  covering,  or 
bigness,  or  muchness,  or  with  any  part  of  the  body  except  the 
touching  of  the  head.     In  harmony  with  this  teaching  is  that  of 
the  sweet  emblem  of  a  Saviour's  baptism,  "  the  appearance  as  of 


PROFESSOR    RIPLEY — PROFESSOR    HACKETT.  81 

a  dove  "  descending  and  remaining  upon  liira  ;  also,  that  of  "  tlie 
cup  "  full  of  penal  woe  held  to  his  lips  by  a  Father's  hand  ;  also, 
the  "  water,"  simple  and  simpl}^  abstract  "  water,"  ordained  of 
God  as  the  emblem  of  cleansing  b}^  a  Saviour's  blood,  all  unite  to 
teach  that  the  addition  of  wind  to  a  cloven  tongue,  or  of  Si  feather 
to  the  pinions  of  the  Dove,  or  of  enlargement  to  the  Redeemer's 
Cup,  or  of  one  drop  to  ^'- water  "  in  symbol  baptism  for  dipping, 
or  immersing,  or  covering,  adds  to  the  word  of  God.  3.  It  teaches 
that  the  emblem  of  a  baptism  is  representative  of  one  thing  and 
not  of  many  things.  As  "  the  cloven  tongues  "  represent  one 
characteristic  gift — the  power  to  speak  in  diverse  languages — in 
this  many-sided  baptism,  and  as  "  the  Dove  "  represents  the  sym- 
pathy of  the  living  Spirit  in  the  wholeness  of  his  Deit}^  and  the 
measurelessness  of  his  power,  with  the  work  of  Redemption  on 
which  the  incarnate  Son  was  entering,  and  as  "  the  Cup  "  rep- 
resents the  deadly  suffering  which  enters  into  redemption,  so 
"  water  "  represents  the  purification  effected  in  the  soul  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  not  a  grave,  a  burial,  a  resurrection,  a  womb,  a 
birth,  a  washing  all  over  (of  clothes  in  these  latter  days)  for  "total 
depravit}^ "  and — I  know  not  what.  If  the  theory  can  carry  all 
these  things,  well;  but  let  the  Bible,  as  a  revelation  from  God,  be 
saved  from  being  overwhelmed  by  such  a  heap  of  things  so  evi- 
dently of  the  earth  earthy. 

Corollary.  If  there  is  no  dipping  into  the  "  cloven  tongues,"  the 
divine  symbol  by  which  the  Apostles  were  baptized;  if  there  is  no 
dipping  into  "  the  Dove,"  the  divine  symbol  by  which  the  cove- 
nanting Redeemer  was  baptized;  if  there  is  no  dipping  into  "the 
Cup,"  the  divine  symbol  b}^  which  the  atoning  Lamb  of  God  is 
baptized  ;  then  there  is  no  dipping  in  "water,"  the  divine  symbol 
by  which  sinners  are  baptized. 

Professor  Ripley — Professor  Hackett. 

Professor  Ripley,  of  the  Newton  Baptist  Theological  Seminary, 
presents  the  following  views  bearing  upon  this  subject  in  his 
Commentary  on  Acts  1  :  2.  After  that  he  (dtd  Ihcu/mrut:  ^Ayiou) 
through  the  Holy  Ghost  had  given  commandments.  "Jesus  is 
represented  in  the  Bible  as  haying  been  abundantly  furnished 
with  spiritual  influences,  or  as  acting  by  the  special  aid  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Hence  he  is  said  in  10 :  38  to  have  been  anointed 
with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  in  Luke  4 : 1  to  have  been  full  of  the 


82  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Holy  Spirit ;  and  in  John  3 :  34,  it  is  said,  the  Father  giveth  not 
the  Spirit  by  measure,  that  is,  in  any  limited  degree,  to  him.     It 
was  under  this  divine  impulse   that  he  instructed  and  commis- 
sioned his  apostles ;   v.  4,  Wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father. 
God  the  Father  had  promised  the  gift  of  the  Holj^  Spirit,  by 
which  the  apostles  of  Jesus  should  be  fully  and  finally  qualified 
for  their  oflEice ;  v.  5,  Fe  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy   Ghost. 
The  word  baptize  primarily  signifies  to  immerse.      And  as  a 
person  who  has  been  immersed  in  water  has  received  it  most 
copiously,  this  word  is  well  used  to  express  the  idea  of  great 
abundance  or  plentifulness.     Compare  Matt.  20  :  22,  23,  where  the 
words  baptize  and  6ap^?'sm  evidently  convey  the  ideaof  ouerM^/ieZm 
and  overwhelming.      To  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  then, 
means  to  receive  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  great  abun- 
dance.    The  apostles  were  to  be  most  plenteously  endued  with 
divine   influence.     The  copious    influences   of  the   Spirit   would 
qualify  them  for  their  office  as  apostles,  by  correcting  all  their 
eiToneous  views,  and  leading  them  into  all  Christian  truth,  by 
greatly  promoting  their  piety  and  zeal,  and  by  endowing  them 
with  miraculous  powers.  .  .  .  The  promised  eff'usion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  took  place  about  ten  days  from  this  declaration ;  v.  8,  Ye 
shall  receive  power.     Ye  shall  receive  all  needed  ability  for  the 
office  to  which  ye  are  called.     The  apostles  were  to  be  endowed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  After  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you. 
It  was  by  the  Holy  Spirit's  agency  Uhat  the  apostles  were  to  be 
fully  prepared  for  their  office  ;  2:2,^  sound  from  heaven  as  of  a 
rushing  mighty  wind.     A  noise  like  wind.     That  the  sound  was 
actually  that  of  a  violent  wind,  Luke  does  not  say,  but  that  it 
resembled  such  a  noise.     It  was    altogether  of  a   supernatural 
character.     It  filled  all  the  house.     The  noise  was  heard  through- 
out the  house.  .  .  .  The  apostles  held  themselves  ready  for  some 
immediate  manifestation  of  his  (the  Holy  Spirit's)  presence  and 
ao-enc^' ;  v.  4,  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.     The 
tokens  of  the  Spirit's  descent  were  connected  with  the  immediate 
enjoyment  of  his  influence,  and  the  outward  manifestation  of  it. 
The  Spirit  was  imparted  so  copiously,  tliat  the  disciples  are  said 
to  have  been  filled  with  it.    New  and  unusual  mental  power  was  pos- 
sessed by  them.    T  heir  religious  views  became  clearer,  and  their  re- 
ligious fervor  was  greatly  increased.     As  the  Spirit  (ro  Ihiotm)  gave 
them  utterance.     As  the  Spirit  enabled  them  to  express  themselves. 
The  gift  of  tongues  was  a  miraculous  endowment  by  the  Holy 


PROFESSOR    RIPLEY — PROFESSOR    HACKETT.  83 

Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit  miraculously  bestowed  on  the  apostles 
the  power  to  use  foreign  languages ;  v.  14,  Peter  standing  up  with 
the  eleven.  What  a  change  had  taken  place  in  Peter  since  the 
night  in  the  high  priest's  palace !  He  was  evidently  now  endued 
with  power  from  on  high;  v.  17,  /  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit. 
The  idea  is,  I  will  impart  a  copious  supply  of  my  Spirit's  influ- 
ences ;  V.  33,  Having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  That  is,  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promised 
Holy  Spirit.  The  disciples  had  kept  themselves  in  expectation 
of  the  Spirit's  coming.  He  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see 
and  hear.  What  you  now  see  and  hear,  as  resulting  from  the 
Spirit's  power,  has  been  shed  forth  by  Jesus.  .  .  .  All  this  was 
to  be  traced  to  Jesus." 

In  these  comments  Professor  Ripley  recognizes  as  true  the 
following  positions:  1.  This  baptism  of  the  Apostles  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  the  baptism  of  the  Lord  Jesus  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
were  of  the  same  generic  character,  with  differences  inseparable 
from  the  need  and  the  nature.of  the  parties.  In  neither  case  was 
there  a  physical  element  into  which  a  dipping,  or  immersing,  or 
covering  took  place;  nor  was  there  any  such  thing  to  be  supplied 
by  the  imagination:  In  both  cases  there  was  a  physical  symbol 
present  by  wliich  the  nature  of  the  baptism  effected  was  betokened. 
Both  baptisms  were  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  both  cases 
there  was  a  thorough  change  of  condition,  bringing  the  baptized 
under  the  influence  of  the  baptizer,  and  investing  with  his  power. 
This  change  in  the  case  of  Jesus  is  indicated  by  being  "abun- 
dantly furnished  with  spiritual  influences;"  by  "acting  under  the 
special  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit;"  being  "anointed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit;"  being  "full  of  the  Holy  Spirit;"  "the  Father  giving 
him  the  Spirit  without  measure;"  "under  this  divine  impulse 
instructing  and  commissioning  the  apostles."  "What  a  change 
in  Peter!"  is  language  which  may  be  applied  to  all  the  apostles. 
This  change  is  indicated  by  "the  correction  of  error,"  the  be- 
stowal of  "mental  power,"  of  "miraculous  power,"  of  "religious 
fervor,"  of  "needed  ability  for  the  apostleship."  This  change  of 
condition  is  represented  by  Prof  Ripley  as  constituting  the  bap- 
tism received.  He  is  right  in  doing  so.  All  baptisms  of  this 
class  consist  in  a  thorough  change  of  condition  assimilating  to 
the  characteristic  of  the  baptizing  power. 

2.  There  was  no  "wind;"  there  was  no  "fire;"  there  was  a 
"  noise  "  heard  throughout  the  house.     There  was  consequently 


84  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

no  "dry  baptism  "  in  wind,  and  no  " catachrestic  "  dipping  into 
wind.  The  apostles  were  not  baptized  in  the  cloven  tongues,  nor 
dipped  into  them  by  catachresis  when  they  sat  upon  their  heads. 
There  is  no  connection  whatever  between  the  act  of  iSaTz-t^oj  and 
the  fire-like  tongues.  The  office  of  this  symbol  is  simply  to  point 
out  the  nature  of  this  baptism  by  a  visible  indication  of  one  of 
the  gifts  entering  into  it. 

3.  The  baptism  consisted  simply  and  solely  in  the  thorough 
change  in  the  condition  of  the  apostles  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
through  varied  gifts  "  enduing  with  power  "  for  the  apostleship. 
The  modal  action  (not  actual,  but  verbally  expressed)  in  effecting 
this  baptism  was,  as  Prof.  Riple}^  says,  "effusion,"  ijouring.  But 
we  do  not  say,  on  this  account,  that  ^ar.Ti%m  expresses  the  modal 
act  to  pour.  This  we  deny.  Proof  has  been  furnished  all  through 
this  Inquiry  that  this  word  never  had,  and  from  its  very  nature 
cannot  have,  anything  to  do  with  modal  action.  But  this  trans- 
action does  prove  that  a  baptism  may  be  by  pouring,  and  that  the 
end  of  the  pouring  is  not  a  covering,  but  a  thorough  change  of 
condition  in  which  there  is  no  dipping,  and  its  introduction,  by 
catachresis,  begets  a  broad  smile. 

4.  The  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a 'divine  Agent,  oper- 
ating through  all  this  transaction,  is  fully  recognized  by  Prof. 
Ripley.  "The  Holy  Spirit  descends,"  "bestows,"  "qualifies." 
It  is  "His  presence,"  "His  influence,"  "His  agency,"  that  does 
the  work.  At  the  same  time  there  is  a  no  less  clear  acknowledg- 
ment that  Jesus  is  the  author  of  this  baptism.  It  is  Jesus  who 
announces  "the  promise  of  the  Father;"  it  is  Jesus  who  receives 
that  "  promise  from  the  Father ;"  it  is  Jesus  who  "  sheds  forth," 
"pours  out,"  this  "[)romised  Spirit;"  and  all  that  relates  to  this 
baptism  is  "  traceable  to  Jesus."  This  relation  between  Jesus 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  both  to  baptism,  is  the  development 
of  tlie  declaration  of  John — "  He  shall  baptize  you  kv  IhcO'iart  'Aytoj 
(being  in  and  therefore)  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  "  o  //a-rt'Cwv  iv 
nv€tj;mzi  'Ayioj  this  is  the  Baptizer  who  is  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  And 
the  fitness  of  the  force  of  iv,  as  expounding  the  personal  relation 
of  Jesus  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  exhibited  by  that  transaction  in 
which  "the  Holy  Ghost  descended  and  remained  upon  him;" 
while  its  relation  to  others,  through  this  new  condition  of  Jesus, 
is  exhibited  by  his  baptizing  the  apostles  {h  Ihcn/xaTc  'Ayuo)  by  the 
Holy  Gliost. 

5.  Prof.  Ripley  says,  "  The  word  baptize  primarily  signifies 


PROFESSOR    RIPLEY — PROFESSOR    HACKETT.  85 

to  immerse.  And  as  a  person  who  has  been  immersed  in  water 
has  received  it  most  copiously,  this  word  is  well  used  to  express 
the  idea  of  great  abundance  or  plenti fulness.^''  This  is  the  only 
point  in  these  comments  which  needs  amendment.  The  difficulty 
arises  from  the  want  of  accurate  discrimination.  Prof.  Ripley 
has  in  view  a  person  who  is  dipped  (momentarily  immersed)  in 
water  and  with  the  clothing  on.  In  such  case  there  must  be  a 
sufficient  abundance  of  water  to  eifect  a  covering ;  but,  to  receive 
water  in  an  abundance  adequate  to  cover  momentarily,  and  to  be 
immersed  in  water  so  as  to  secure  the  effect  distinctive  of  such 
immersion,  are  things  which  are  as  diverse  as  any  two  things  can 
well  be.  Clothing  from  its  porous  nature  will  be  made  quite  wet 
by  a  dipping,  and  will  be  saturated  by  an  immersion.  A  person 
divested  of  clothing  does  not  receive  the  water,  as  does  his  cloth- 
ing, when  dipped  into  it.  A  flint  rock  and  india-rubber  vest- 
ments may  be  covered  in  water,  but  they  do  not  "  receive  it 
abundantly"  as  a  means  of  influence  ;  it  cannot  penetrate  beyond 
their  surface.  Wetness  is  not  the  distinctive  character  of  an  im- 
mersion any  more  than  of  a  pouring  or  of  rain-droppings.  The 
result  to  a  clothed  living  person  of  an  immersion  in  water  is, 
that  liis  clothes  are  saturated  and  he  is  suflTocated.  Therefore 
the  Greeks  used  ^ar,TiX,ui  to  express  the  condition  of  a  man  not 
dipped  into  water,  but  who  had  been  brought  under  the  dis- 
tinctive power  of  water  by  immersion  and  thus  drowned.  It  is 
on  the  fact  that  immersion  develops  the  power  of  the  covering 
element  over  the  baptized  object  that  baptize  is  used  to  express 
such  like  'power.,  not  "  abundance,"  where  there  is  no  immersion. 
There  is  no  "  abundance  "  in  a  cup  of  wine,  yet  the  Greeks  said 
it  had  a  power  to  baptize.  There  is  no  "  abundance  "  in  a  few 
opiate  drops,  yet  the  Greeks  said  they  had  a  power  to  baptize. 
There  is  no  abundance  in  a  half  dozen  bewildering  questions, 
yet  the  Greeks  said  they  had  the  power  to  baptize.  The  refer- 
ence to  Matt.  20  :  22,  23,  sustains  the  view  here  presented,  namely, 
that  of  power,  not  that  of  "  abundance."  The  statement  that  in 
this  passage  "  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  evidently  convej' 
the  idea  of  overwhelm  and  overwhelming^^  is,  in  general,  correct, 
with  a  correct  meaning  attached  to  those  words.  "  Overwhelm  " 
is  rarely  used  in  the  simple  sense  of  its  elements  whelm,  over. 
In  this  it  resembles  overcome  (come,  over),  overthrow  (throw, 
over),  overbear  (bear,  over),  and  countless  other  words  which  lay 
aside  the  form  of  conception  in  their  elements  and  adopt  some 


86  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

involved  result.  Now  in  whelming  over  there  is  always  present 
a  resistless  power,  and  the  whelming  over  of  waters  is  generally 
connected  with  a  destructive  issue,  and  the  compound  "over- 
whelm" adopts  these  ideas,  namely,  resistless  power^  commonly,, 
hurtful  in  its  nature,  Tlie  idea  of  "  abundance  "  is  not  involved 
in  this  usage;  a  word,  a  look,  a  poisonous  drop,  ma}^  "over- 
whelm," when  it  could  not  whelm  over.  This  is  the  usage  (if 
these  words  be  applied  here)  in  Matt.  20 :  22,  23 ;  the  cup  is  full 
of  penal  woe,  and  in  the  drinking  of  it  the  Friend  of  sinners  is 
"overwhelmed"  by  a  resistless,  deadly  poiver;  and  hence  the 
fitness  of  using  jSarrc^uj  and  i3d7rTi(T;j.a  in  this  case,  as  expi'essive 
of  limitless  power.  The  same  usage  precisel}'  obtains  in  the 
baptism  under  consideration.  However  many  in  number,  how- 
ever varied  in  character,  however  rich  in  measure,  may  have  been 
the  gifts  received  by  the  apostles,  their  baptism  had  no  essential 
connection  with  "  abundance,"  but  consisted  in  their  being  "  en- 
dued with  power  ^^  by  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  upostleship.  In  this 
point  (amid  the  most  marvellous  extravagances)  Dr.  Carson  is 
more  correct  than  Professor  Ripley,  when  he  says,  "  That  which 
is  immersed  in  a  liquid  is  completely  subjected  to  its  injluence  and 
imbued  with  its  virtues;  so  to  be  immersed  in  the  Spirit  repre- 
sents the  subjection  of  soul,  body,  and  spirit  to  his  injluence.'' 
The  idea  of  "  abundance  "  springs  out  of  "  pouring,"  not  out  of 
immersion.  "Immersed  in  thought;"  "immersed  in  study;" 
"  immersed  in  the  books  ; "  are  phrases  which  have  no  connection 
with  abundance.  "  I  will  pour  you  out  a  blessing  so  that  there 
shall  not  be  room  enough  to  receive  it;"  "I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit  on  all  flesh,"  are  phrases  which  have  no  intelligent  mean- 
ing except  under  the  idea  of  abundance. 

Professor  Hackett,  of  Rochester  Baptist  Theological  Seminary, 
presents  similar  views  in  his  Commentary'  on  this  passage.  1. 
Christ  is  both  personally  baptized,  and  is  baptizer  by  the  Holy 
Ghost :  Acts  1 : 2.  Gave  commandment  Scd  Ihsoimroz  'Ayinu,  through 
the  Holy  Spirit.,  his  influence,  guidance.  This  noun  as  so  used 
may  omit  the  article  or  receive  it,  at  the  option  of  the  writer, 
since  it  has  the  force  of  a  proper  name.  This  passage,  in  accord- 
ance with  other  passages,  represents  the  Saviour  as  having  been 
endued  abundantly  witli  the  influences  of  tlie  Spirit,  and  as  hav- 
ing acted  always  in  conformity  with  its  dictates:  see  Luke  4:  1, 
"  Jesus  being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  led  up  (iv  zw  lhei>imrt) 
by  the  Spirit : "  John  3  :  34,  "  For  God  giveth  not  (ru  Ihsn/ia)  the 


BOOTH — MORRELL.  87 

Spirit  by  measure  unto  him."  2 :  33,  "  Having  received  of  the 
Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  i.  e.,  the  Holy  Spirit 
promised.  "  He  hath  shed  forth  this."  The  effusion  of  the  Spirit 
which  is  ascribed  to  God  in  v.  17  is  ascribed  here  to  Christ. 

2.  The  personal  divine  Spirit  was  the  Agent.  Acts  2:  6,  "Now 
when  this  sound"  —  that  of  the  descending  Spirit;  v.  18,  "The 
effusion  of  the  Spirit  was  to  be  universal  as  to  classes.  .  .  .  The 
modes  of  divine  revelation  and  of  the  Spirit's  operation,  which 
are  specified  in  this  passage ;  ...  It  portrays  the  character  of 
the  entire  dispensation.  Those  special  manifestations  of  the 
Spirit  marked  the  economy  as  one  that  was  to  be  eminently  dis- 
tinguished by  the  Spirit's  agency." 

3.  The  baptism  of  the  apostles  was  not  a  dipping  into  or  cover- 
ing over  with  anything,  but  qualification  for  their  work.  "1:8, 
Ye  shall  receive  power  after  the  Holy  Ghost  has  come  upon  you ; 
bmaiuv  efficiency,  i.  e.,  every  needful  qualification  to  render  them 
efficient  in  their  apostolic  spheres ;  come  upon  you,  designates  the 
time  when  they  should  receive  this  power,  as  well  as  the  source 
of  it." 

4.  There  was  no  wind.  "2:2,  As  if  a  mighty  wind,  filled,  to 
wit,  rjX'K,  sound,  which  is  the  only  natural  subject  furnished  by 
the  context." 

5.  The  Cloven  tongues  were  symbols  of  the  baptism.  "2:3, 
The  fire-like  appearance  may  have  assumed  the  appearance  of 
tongues  as  a  symbol  of  the  miraculous  gift  which  accompanied 
the  wonder." 

The  eminent  scholarship  of  Prof.  Hackett  is  excelled  only  by 
his  unassuming  Christian  character. 

Booth — Morrell. 

"The  venerable  Booth"  says  (I,  101):  "The  extraordinary 
gifts  and  influence  received  at  Pentecost  is  called  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  .  .  .  Our  brethren  will,  I  think,  allow  that  a 
person  may  be  so  surrounded  by  subtle  effluvia ;  that  a  liquid 
may  be  so  poured,  or  it  may  so  distil  upon  him,  that  he  may  be 
as  if  immersed  in  it.  A  writer  speaking  of  electricity  says,  '  The 
first  is  the  electrical  hath;  so  called  because  it  surrounds  the 
patient  with  an  atmosphere  of  the  electrical  fluid,  in  which  he  is 
plunged,  and  receives  positive  electricity.'  This  reminds  me  of 
the  language,  '  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven  as  of  a  rushing 


88  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were 
SITTING,'  Was  the  Holy  Spirit  poured  out,  did  the  Holy  Spirit 
fall  upon,  the  Apostles  and  others,  at  that  memorable  time  ?  it 
was  in  such  a  manner,  and  to  such  a  degree,  that  they  were,  like 
a  patient  in  the  electric  bath,  as  if  immersed  in  it^ 

It  is  useless  for  "Rantists"  to  protest  against  such  wild  talk 
being  called  interpretation ;  but  as  Professor  Riplej^  and  Pro- 
fessor Hackett  are  not  " Ranters," their  friends  maybe  willing  to 
learn  from  them,  through  this  Pentecost  baptism,  a  broader  and 
a  truer  usage  of  ^anri^co,  even  as  they  learned  a  broader  and  a 
truer  usage  of  iidnrcu,  from  Dr.  Carson,  at  the  shore  of  the 
Homeric  lake. 

Morell  (Reply  to  Dr.  Halley,  Edinburgh,  p.  170)  says:  "As  it 
reo-ards  the  baptism  of  the  Pentecost,  the  wind  and  the  fire  had 
no  modal  signification  whatever.  When  we  read  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  'coming  upon  the  disciples,'  of  its  being  'poured  out,'  and 
'poured  down,' these  phrases  denote  simply  the  bestowment  or 
the  abundance  of  the  gifts  and  influences  of  the  Spirit.  The  Pedo- 
baptist  interpretation,  which  derives  an  argument  for  a  particular 
mode  of  baptism,  viz.,  affusion,  as  best  resembling  the  supposed 
mode  in  which  the  soul  is  baptized  by  the  Spirit,  is  to  materialize 
a  divine  influence,  and  to  construct  a  baseless  argument  upon  a 
mere  figurative  expression.  The  occurrences  at  Pentecost  are 
generally  considered  as  fulfilling  the  language  of  John,  'He  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.'  When  Jesus 
apprises  his  disciples  of  the  Pentecost  baptism,  he  says  nothing 
about  the  fre.  .  .  .  The  lambent  flames,  like  cloven  tongues,  which 
came  and  sat  upon  the  disciples'  heads,  while  they  were  very  ex- 
pressively emblematical  of  the  most  distinguished  gift  of  the  Spirit 
on  that  day,  viz.,  the  power  of  speaking  in  other  tongues,  had  no 
allusion  to  baptism  whatever.  .  .  .  While  the  Bantists  say,  'The 
wind  came  upon  them;'  the  Baptists  may  say,  'The  wind  com- 
pletely surrounded  them,  so  that  they  were  symbolically  immersed 
in  it.'  But  the  Scripture  does  not  say  that  there  was  not  any 
wind.  All  we  can  learn  is,  that  there  was  a  loud  mysterious  noise 
which  filled  the  house.  A  noise,  surely,  cannot  symbolize  sprink- 
ling or  immersing.  The  baptism  of  Pentecost  consisted  in  the 
minds  of  the  disciples  being  entirely  absorbed  by  the  Spirit,  and 
all  their  powers  and  faculties  wholly  subjected  to  its  influence." 

Morell  writes  with  the  courtesy  and  candor  which  indicate  the 
refined  man,  as  well  as  the  cultivated  scholar.     In  the  style  which 


BOOTH — MORELL.  89 

prevails  among  writers  on  his  side,  the  use  of  the  term  "  Rantists  " 
would  pass  unnoticed  amid  harsher  expletives;  but  on  his  page 
it  is  a  snag  which  we  encounter  with  a  shock.  We  make  no  com- 
plaint of  the  use  of  such  terms.  If  opponents  can  afford  to  use 
them  they  will  neither  harm  nor  annoy  us.  The  objection  of 
Morell  against  "  the  Rantists  "  grounding  a  claim  to  pour  in  ritual 
.baptism  on  the  use  of  "pour  out,"  "pour  down,"  to  express  the 
manner  in  which  the  Spirit  was  given  to  effect  the  Pentecost  bap- 
tism, is  without  value,  because  it  is  without  any  foundation  laid 
by  "the  Rantists."  Their  reasoning  is  turned  upside  down  and 
wrong  end  foi'emost.  Their  argument  is  not,  "  The  Holy  Ghost 
is  'poured  out'  to  effect  baptism,  therefore  water  should,  in  like 
manner,  be  'poured  out '  to  effect  ritual  baptism,"  but  this  :  "  The 
Holy  Ghost  is  figuratively  said  to  be  poured  out  to  effect  a  bap- 
tism, THEREFORE  this  figurative  appropriation  of  pouring  out  must 
he  grounded  in  a  previous  p)hysical  use  of  'pouring  out'  to  effect 
baptism."  We  do  not  deduce  authority  to  pour  water  in  baptiz- 
ing from  the  use  of  "pouring"  in  the  baptizing  by  the  Spirit,  but 
reversely  we  say,  that  authority  to  use  pouring  figurativeh^  in  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  deduced  from  the  previous  physical  use 
of  pouring  in  ritual  baptism.  If  this  be  "a  baseless  argument 
materializing  a  divine  influence,"  we  will  abandon  it  when  the 
evidence  shall  have  been  adduced.  But  between  us  and  such 
evidence  stands  the  altar  of  Carmel,  on  which  water  is  being 
poured  in  order  to  its  baptism,  without  dipping,  immersing,  or 
covering,  thoroughly  changing  its  condition  from  ceremonial  im- 
purity to  ceremonial  purity.  On  such  antecedent  physical  prac- 
tice is  based  the  subsequent  figurative  use.  Morell  is  right  in 
separating  these  "  as  of  fire  "  tongues  from  the  "  baptism  by  fire  " 
spoken  of  by  John.  They  have  nothing  to  do  with  each  other. 
He  is  also  right  in  saying,  that  "they  had  no  allusion  whatever 
to  baptism,"  using  '"baptism"  in  the  sense  of  dipping,  immersing, 
covering;  but  using  it  in  the  only  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the 
New  Testament  (thorough  change  of  condition),  and  in  which 
confessedly  it  is  used  here,  then,  these  cloven  tongues  have  not 
only  some  "allusion  "  to  the  baptism,  but  are  a  most  vital  element 
in  its  exposition.  The  apostles  were  really  baptized  hy  the  Holy 
Ghost  "giving  them  power  to  speak  in  other  tongues;"  they  were 
symbolly  baptized  by  tongues  as  of  fire,  indicative  of  the  nature 
of  the  real  baptism  which  had  been  received.  This  is  the  precise 
value  of   the  admission  by  Morell — "The  cloven  tongues  were 


90  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

very  expressively  emblematical  of  the  most  distinguished  gift 
of  the  Spirit  on  that  day,  viz.,  the  power  of  speaking  in  otlier 
tongues."  And  precisely  the  same  relation  which  these  "cloven 
tongues"  have  to  this  extraordinary  baptism  does  the  pure  water 
have  in  the  ordinary  Christian  baptism.  As  the  "  cloven  tongues  " 
do  by  their  nature  symbolize  and  expound  the  nature  of  this 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  does  the  pure  water  by  its  nature, 
symbolize  and  expound  the  nature  of  that  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  And  if  it  would  be  regarded  as  a  singular  perversity  which 
should  connect  these  "tongues"  with  iSanrc^w,  and  insist  on  the 
Apostles  being  dipjjed  into  them,  so  it  is  a  like  logical  and  gram- 
matical perversit}'  which  insists  that  men  and  women  should  be 
dipped  into  the  symbol  water  betokening  the  nature  of  the  bap- 
tism in  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  verb  fia-ri^iu  has  no 
more  to  do  with  the  symbol  water  than  it  has  to  do  with  the 
symbol  tongues,  and  it  has  no  more  to  do  with  either  than  Chang 
Eng  of  the  Celestial  Empire  has  to  do  with  the  succession  to  the 
Presidency  over  tiiis  "Flowery  Kingdom"  of  America, 

Irenseus — Ci/ril  of  Jerusalem — Gregory  Nazianzen. 

Irenseus  (844)  characterizes  the  baptism  of  the  Apostles  as 
"being  endued  with  power  from  on  high,  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
coming  upon  them,  being  filled  with  all  official  requisites,  and 
having  complete  knowledge."  That  is,  he  believed  that  it  was  a 
complete  change  of  condition  qualifying  them  for  their  high  office. 

The  representation  given  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  is  of  the  same 
character ;  (900 )  "  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  power;"  (871)  "Matthew  says  concerning  his  baptism: 
The  heavens  were  opened  to  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God, 
as  a  dove,  coming  upon  him.  And  behold  a  voice  from  heaven, 
saying, 'This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.' 
For  Christ  did  not  then  descend  into  Jesus;  nor  is  Christ  one 
and  Jesus  another ;  but  the  Word  of  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of 
all,  and  Lord  of  lieaven  and  earth,  who  is  Jesus,  who  also  assumed 
flesh,  and  was  anointed  by  the  Si)irit  from  the  Father,  was  made 
Jesus  Christ.  And  as  Isaiah  says:  'The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  shall 
rest  upon  him,  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  understanding,  the  spirit 
of  counsel  and  might,  the  spirit  of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of 
the  Lord,  and  the  spirit  of  the  fear  of  the  Lord  shall  fill  him.' 
And  again  Isaiah,  foretelling  his  anointing  and  for  what  he  was 


IREN^US.  91 

anointed,  says:  'The  Spirit  of  God  is  upon  me,  wherefore  he  has 
anointed  me ;  he  hath  sent  me  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the  lowly, 
to  bind  up  the  broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  pardon  to  the  captives, 
and  sight  to  the  blind,  to  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  day  of  vengeance,  to  comfort  all  who  mourn.'  For 
the  reason  that  the  Word  of  God  was  man,  out  of  the  root  of 
Jesse  and  Son  of  Abraham,  therefore  the  Spirit  of  God  rested 
upon  him,  and  he  was  anointed  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the 
lowly." 

It  is  obvious  that  Irenseus  regarded  the  baptism  of  the  Word 
of  God  as  to  his  manhood,  by  the  Holy  Ghost  descending  and 
remaining  upon  him,  as  identical,  in  general  character,  with  that 
of  the  Apostles  by  the  Holy  Ghost  coming  down  upon  them;  that 
is  to  say,  the  baptism  in  either  case  was  a  meet  preparation  for 
the  fulfilment  of  official  duty  on  which  they  were  just  entering. 
The  personality  and  the  distinctive  character  of  the  work  in  the 
two  cases  differed  measurelessly ;  and  the  baptism  was  "without 
measure"  in  the  one  case,  and  by  measure  in  the  other.  And 
because  the  baptisms  differ  while  they  agree,  the  baptism  could 
not  be  by  dipping,  nor  by  honest  immersion  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  a  receiving  element,  because  then  the  baptisms  must  be  the 
same.  The  baptism  was  by  an  intelligent  Divine  agent,  "who 
divides  to  every  one  severally  as  He  will." 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (440)  says,  "The  Baptizer  (w  /Sa;rrc'^«;v)  with 
water  is  good,  but  what  is  he  to  the  Baptizer  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  fire  ?  The  Saviour  baptized  the  Apostles  (Uvsu/mrc  "Aytu)  xai 
■Kup\)  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire  when  cloven  tongues  as  of  fire 
appeared  to  them,  and  sat  upon  each  one  of  them,  and  they  were 
filled  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here  Cyril  by  dropping  h  in  connection 
with  lhs'JiJ.a-1  'Ayiuj  shows  that  he  understands  that  phrase  to  ex- 
press agency.  The  same  conclusion  is  reached  by  the  conjunction 
of  7:up\  with  this  phrase  in  this  baptism  where  in  the  nature  of 
things  there  could  be  no  dipping  in  the  "  tongues,"  and  therefore 
there  could  be  none  designed  in  its  associate  Iheoimn  ^Ayio). 

978.  "  But  John,  who  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  from  his 
mother's  womb,  was  sanctified  for  this  purpose,  that  he  might 
baptize  the  Lord  ;  but  he  did  not  confer  the  Spirit,  only  announc- 
ing him  who  did  confer  the  Spirit,  '  He  saw  the  Spirit  of  God 
descending  as  a  dove  and  coming  upon  him.'  It  was  necessary, 
as  some  interpret,  that  the  first  fruits  and  first  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  be  baptized  be  furnished  to  the  humanity  of  the  Saviour 


92  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

who  gives  like  grace."  The  Saviour  is  represented  both  as  being 
baptized  and  himself  baptizing  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

986.  "  Pentecost  being  come  the  Paraclete  descended  from 
heaven.  He  descended  that  he  might  endue  with  power  and  bap- 
tize the  Apostles.  The  grace  was  not  divided,  but  the  power 
complete.  .  .  .  For  as  one  inclosed  with  waters  and  baptized  is 
surrounded  on  all  sides  by  the  waters,  so  also  thej'  were  com- 
pletely baptized  (urtd)  by  the  Spirit.  But  the  water  is  poured 
around  (nspt^slTai)  externally,  but  (rd  nveb/ia)  the  Spirit  baptizes 
the  soul  within  completely.  And  why  do  you  wonder  ?  Take  a 
physical  illustration,  slight  and  simple,  but  useful  to  the  more 
uninstructed.  If  fire  penetrating  within  the  densit}'  of  iron  makes 
the  whole  fire ;  and  the  cold  becomes  hot  and  the  black  becomes 
bright ;  if  fire  being  a  substance  penetrating  within  the  substance 
of  iron  worlds  so  without  hindrance  ;  why  dost  tliou  wonder  if  the 
Holy  Spirit  enters  into  the  innermost  parts  of  the  soul?" 

Cyril  had  a  very  fair  opportunity  here  to  say  that  fiaTzzi^w  means 
to  dip,  but  he  declines  to  adopt  so  un-Greekly  a  doctrine,  and 
ranks  himself  with  those  who  declare  that  it  makes  demand  for 
condition.  His  exposition  of  baptisms  based  on. effect  without 
covering  as  illustrated  by  the  mass  of  iron  penetrated  by  fire  and 
communicating  its  own  quality  to  it,  changing  its  condition  of 
coldness  to  hotness,  and  of  darkness  to  brightness,  is  identical 
with  the  doctrine  developed  in  tliis  Inquiry,  to  wit:  a  thorough 
change  of  condition  by  penetrating,  pervading,  and  assimilating 
to  the  characteristic  of  the  baptizing  power.  If  Cyril  had  set  out 
to  illustrate  this  definition  he  could  not  have  done  it  in  a  more 
complete  manner. 

Origen  (III,  1864),  "He  shall  baptize  you  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  fire."  "  When  does  Jesus  baptize  (Spiritu  saneto)  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  again,  when  does  he  baptize  (igne)  by  fire  ?  Does 
he  baptize  at  one  and  the  same  time  (Spiritu  et  igne)  by  the  Spirit 
and  fire,  or  separately  and  diversely  ?  The  Apostles  were  bap- 
tized after  his  ascension  to  heaven  (Spiritu  saneto)  '  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,'  but  that  they  were  baptized  (igne)  '  by  fire '  the  Scripture 
does  not  relate." 

Throughout  this  passage  the  preposition  is  omitted,  and  "Spir- 
itu saneto  "  and  "  igne  "  appear  as  agencies.  The  interpretation 
wluch  connects  John's  declaration,  "  He  shall  baptize  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  fire,"  with  the  Pentecostal  "  tongues  as  of  fire,"  is  re- 
jected, and  properly  so. 


THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  THIS  BAPTISM.        93 


The  Imj)ortance  of  this  Baptism. 

The  importance  of  the  narrative  of  this  baptism  in  its  relations 
to  Christian  baptism  and  the  usage  of /SaTm'Cw  can  hardly  be  over- 
estimated. This  importance  is  both  intrinsic  and  incidental.  The 
narrative  has  intrinsic  value:  1.  Because  of  its  fulness  ;  no  other 
baptism  in  the  New  Testament  is  related  with  equal  detail.  The 
time  (Pentecost),  the  place  (a  house),  the  persons  (a  limited  class, 
Apostles),  to  be  baptized ;  the  baptizer,  more  remote  its  divine 
Author,  more  immediate  its  divine  Agent ;  the  baptism,  its  nature 
spiritual,  its  mode  "coming  upon,"  in  figure  as  to  the  Agent,  in 
fact  as  to  the  symbol ;  its  emblem  "  cloven  tongues;"  its  proof  as 
an  accomplished  fact  "speaking  in  other  tongues;"  nothing  is 
lacking  to  completeness.  2.  Because  of  its  clearness ;  hereby  is 
established  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  an  active  Agent 
in  eftecting  baptism  ;  the  union  and  the  relation  in  union  of  Christ 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  work  of  baptism  ;  the  "  wind  "  is  no 
symbol  of  baptism  and  is  not  present  in  this  baptism  ;  the  "cloven 
tongues  "  are  a  symbol  of  this  baptism  and  are  present  to  illus- 
trate its  nature ;  the  quantity  of  a  tongue  does  not  enter  into  its 
power  of  symbolization  ;  the  symbol  of  a  baptism  has  no  other 
relation  to  baptism  than  its  poioer  by  its  own  nature  to  symbolize 
the  nature  of  the  baptism  ;  these  truths  are  radical  helps  in  the 
right  interpretation  of  Christian  baptism.  3.  Because  of  agree- 
ment induced  :  (1.)  It  is  agreed  in  view  of  this  transaction,  that 
there  may  be  a  baptism  in  which  there  is  no  dipping,  or  immers- 
ing, or  covering,  in  fact,  and  into  which  it  cannot  allowabl}^  be 
introduced,  by  Catachresis  or  otherwise ;  but  the  use  of  the  word 
must  be  traced  to  the  result  of  immersion  on  a  penetrable  body 
placed  within  an  element  having  some  definite  characteristic  which 
it  thus  imparts  to  the  baptized  object,  the  mode  of  effecting  such 
result  disappearing  in  the  secondar}'  usage  and  giving  place,  with- 
out limit,  to  any  mode  of  operation  or  influence  capable  of  effect- 
ing a  like  result.  (2.)  It  is  farther  agreed,  that  the  true  expression 
for  this  baptism  is  "  the  subjection  of  an  object  to  some  definite 
influence  and  the  consequent  imbuing  of  it  with  its  virtue,"  or  the 
equivalent — the  penetrating  and  pervading  of  any  object  by  any 
power  assimilating  such  object  to  its  own  characteristic,  as  iron 
penetrated  and  pervaded  by  fire  becomes  subject  to  its  character- 
istic heat  and  is  made  fire-like.     (3.)  It  is  agreed,  that  this  bap- 


94  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

tism  was  spiritual,  the  work  of  the  divine  Spirit  on  the  human 
spirit,  subjecting  it  to  his  influence,  imbuing  it  with  his  own  char- 
acteristics, and  enduing  them  with  consequent  "  power,"  (4.)  It 
is  agreed,  that  with  this  spiritual  baptism  there  was  a  physical 
symbol  in  which  there  was  no  baptism,  but  its  sole  office  was,  by 
its  oivn  nature^  to  indicate  the  nature  of  the  baptism. 

These  agreements,  consistently  carried  out,  will  establish  unity 
of  interpretation  in  every  baptism  of  tlie  New  Testament,. 

The  narrative  of  this  baptism  has  incidental  importance  :  1. 
Because  it  is  the  first  baptism  under  Christianit}'.  For  that 
reason  it  is  made  resplendent  with  the  glory  of  the  Father  who 
gives,  with  the  glor}'  of  the  Son  who  pours  out,  and  with  the 
glory  of  the  Holy  Ghost  who  executes  this  baptism.  That  this 
baptism  (as  introductory  to  kindred  baptisms  running  down 
through  long  ages)  might  be  thoroughly  understood,  we  have  its 
full  and  clear  record  for  our  study.  2.  Because  it  throws  light  on 
Christian  baptism.  This  baptism  is  not  technical  Christian  bap- 
tism. The  baptism  of  Christ  into  the  covenant  fulfilment  of  all 
righteousness,  with  water  fitly  s\'mbolizing  its  nature,  was  not 
Christian  baptism.  The  baptism  of  Christ  bj'  the  Holy  Grhost, 
fitly  symbolized  by  the  Dove,  enduing  his  humanity  with  every 
requisite  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  covenant,  was  not  Chris- 
tian baptism.  The  baptism  of  Christ  into  penal  death  by  a 
broken  Law  (fitly  symbolized  by  a  cup  filled  with  deadly  woe)  was 
not  Christian  baptism.  But  all  these  baptisms  constituted  a  basis 
on  which  Christian  baptism  was  to  rest,  and  without  which  it 
could  not  exist.  The  baptism  of  the  Apostles  was  not  Christian 
baptism,  but  it  was  a  basis  divinely  laid,  on  which  as  Christ's 
ministers  that  baptism  might  be  proclaimed,  and  without  which 
they  could  not  have  done  so.  As  this  was  a  spiritual  l)ai)Usm,  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  it  teaches  us  that  Christian  baptism, 
for  which  it  was  preparative,  must  be  a  spiritual  baptism,  and  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  farther  teaches  us,  that  Christian 
baptism  as  a  spiritual  baptism  ma_v  be  accompanied  with  and 
illustrated  as  to  its  nature  by  a  physical  symbol.  And  this  is 
true  in  fact;  Christian  baptism,  the  work  of  the  II0I3'  Ghost,  has 
its  divinely  appointed  symbol  (water),  which  by  its  nature  fitly 
illustrates  the  purifying  nature  of  the  work  of  the  Divine  S|)irit 
in  the  sinner's  soul,  as  the  "  cloven  tongues  "  with  divine  perfect- 
ness  symbolized  the  work  of  that  same  Spirit  in  the  souls  of  the 
Apostles.     It  teaches  us  that  the  symbol  of  Christian  baptism  is 


CHRIST    THE    BAPTIZER    BY    THE    HOLY    GHOST.  95 

perverted  from  its  divinely  appointed  office  when  there  is  an 
attempt  to  effect  a  baptism  in  it,  and  that  such  attempt  is  stamped 
with  the  guilty  folly  of  placing  a  usurping  fiction  alongside  of,  or 
rather  in  the  stead  of,  the  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Acts  11:  15,  16. 

'EiriTreae  to  TLvevfin  rb  "Ayiov  ctt'  avrovg  (bairsp  koI  e(p'  rjnaq  kv  apxv-  ''Efivi]- 
oQrj  'luavvrjg  fiev  i^a-KTiaev  iiSari,  v/xstg  de  BaTTTtaOr/creade  kv  UvEv/iari  'Ayiu. 

"And  as  T  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  ftll  on  them,  as  on  us  in  the 
beginning.  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said, 
John  indeed  baptized  with  water ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

Christ  the  Baptizer  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

This  baptism  belongs  to  the  same  class  of  baptisms  as  that  of 
Pentecost.  It  has  the  same  divine  Author  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  same  divine  executive  Agent  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  had  the  same 
outward  development  speaking  with  tongues,  and  their  oneness 
is  declared  by  Peter — "  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at 
the  beginning."  But  while  these  baptisms  belong  to  the  same 
class  there  is  between  them  essential  diversity.  The  baptism  at 
Pentecost  was  a  baptism  qualifying  for  the  Apostleship ;  this 
baptism  was  a  baptism  qualifying  for  Christian  life,  with  such 
special  endowment  as  should  convince  Peter  and  others,  that 
Gentiles  were  to  be  received  even  as  Jews  into  the  Christian 
church.  No  one  can  imagine  for  a  moment  that  there  was  same- 
ness of  gifts  conferred  on  Peter  and  his  associates,  and  on  Cor- 
nelius and  his  associates.  Sameness  in  some  respects  there  un- 
doubtedly was  ;  but  even  where  there  was  sameness  in  kind,  there 
was  not  necessarily  or  probably  sameness  of  measure.  The  gift 
of  tongues  was  common  to  both  baptisms  ;  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  they  sjDake  the  same  languages  or  the  same  number  of  lan- 
guages. The  baptism  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
belongs  to  the  same  class  of  baptisms  with  that  of  the  Apostles ; 
while  in  its  discriminating  character  as  qualifying  him  for  his 
wondrous  mission,  it  is  essentially  diverse  ;  so,  the  baptism  of  the 
Apostles  by  the  Holy  Ghost  belongs  to  the  same  class  of  baptisms 
with  that  of  these  Gentiles,  while  in  its  discriminating  character 
as  qualifying  them  for  the  Apostleship,  it  was  essentially  diverse. 
And  by  this  diversity  in  sameness  of  baptism,  the  theory  is  again 
overturned.     The  life  of  the  theory  centres,  legitimately,  in  modal 


96  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

action  ;  hut  this  being  found  at  every  turn  pierced  through  and 
through  by  the  sharp  spearing  of  facts,  retreat  is  sought  in  "  cov- 
ering," however  induced ;  but  when  the  covering  is  not  induced 
in  any  way  "  however,"  what  then  ?  "  Covering  "  must  be  cover- 
ing, as  surely  as  "  dipping"  must  be  dipping,  and  when  a  bap- 
tism is  developed  in  which  there  is  no  "  covering,"  then,  in  that 
moment,  the  theory  dies.  But  here  there  is  confessedly  a  bap- 
tism without  a  "  dipping,"  and  without  a  "  covering,"  the  theory 
then  perishes.  The  thec^'y  is  too  short  for  the  facts  to  stretch 
themselves  in,  and  too  narrow  to  wrap  themselves  in.  Baptisms 
are  diverse;  and  at  the  touch  of  diversity  the  theory  is  shattered 
into  fragments.  It  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  retrieve  this  ruin  by 
referring  to  a  covering  in  immersion,  and  saying  that  this  bap- 
tism is  founded  on  the  covering  in  an  immersion.  This  is  not 
true,  and  to  rest  in  it  is  only  a  self  deception.  It  is  the  same  as 
saying  that  to  dye  (jSa-KTU)  second)  is  founded  in  the  modal  act 
to  dip  (iSoLTzroj  first).  This  is  clearly  an  error.  The  foundation 
of  the  secondary  meaning  is  grounded  not  in  the  form  of  the  act 
but  in  the  effect  resultant  upon  the  dipping  of  certain  objects  into 
certain  {dyeing)  liquids.  The  modal  act  is  an  accident  which 
makes  no  appearance  in  the  secondary  meaning.  The  modal 
act  of  dipping  might  be  repeated  forever  and  a  day  into  an  un- 
colored  liquid,  and  it  would  never  become  the  foundation  for  the 
meaning  to  dye.  Precisely  so  is  it  with  the  secondaiy  meaning 
of  ;5a-r£"w,  which  is  grounded  in  the  effect  produced  upon  certain 
objects  (permeable)  mersed  in  certain  fluids  (having  definite 
qualities).  AVith  the  covering  as  causative  of  the  effect,  the  sec- 
ondary meaning  {thorough  change  of  condition  with  assimilation) 
has  nothing  to  do,  and  it  never  enters  into  that  meaning;  but  on 
the  contrary  is  expresslj^  repudiated  by  it,  and  its  very  life 
depends  upon  such  repudiation.  Now,  while  the  theory  is  dum- 
fouuded  in  the  presence  of  diverse  baptisms,  all  such  baptisms 
join  in  declaring — "  Our  diversity  is  in  unity  under  a  thorough 
change  of  condition  assimilated  to  the  characteristic  of  the  power 
effecting  such  change  of  condition." 

Professor  Ripley — Professor  Hackett — Baptist  Version. 

The  views  of  this  baptism  presented  in  the  Commentaries  of 
Professors  Ripley  and  Hackett,  and  in  the  Baptist  Bible  Version 
of  Acts,  will  now  be  presented. 


BAPTIST    VERSION.  97 

In  10  :  45  it  is  said  :  "  On  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  relation  of  "  pouring  "  to  baptism 
is  thus  presented  by  Prof  Ripley  in  his  comment  on  v.  38  of  this 
chapter — "  'God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  power.'  As,  in  a  literal  anointing,  the  oil  was  poured 
on  a  person,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured  forth  on 
Jesus  ;  that  is,  it  was  abundantly  bestowed  on  him,  that  he  might 
perform  his  holy  work.  .  .  .  The  term  anoint  was  figuratively 
used,  even  when  there  was  not  a  literal  anointing,  to  signify  set- 
ting apart  and  qualifying  for  a  certain  office.  Jesus  was  iset  apart 
as  the  Messiah,  and  abundantly  qualified  for  his  office  by  receiving 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  power  from  on  high."  On  11  :  15,  "'TAe 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  tJiem,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning.^  The  Spirit 
shed  forth  the  extraordinary  gifts  ...  as  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Lord's  imparting  these  extraordinary  gifts  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, when  the  promise  of  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit  began 
to  be  fulfilled."     Anointed  is  here  the  substitute  for  baptized. 

The  transaction  at  Ctesarea  is  identified  by  Prof  Ripley  with 
that  at  Jerusalem,  so  far  as  sameness  of  baptizer,  generic  same- 
ness of  baptism,  and  sameness  in  representation  as  to  the  mode 
of  accomplishment,  "pouring,"  are  concerned. 

Professor  Hackett  says,  10  :  44,  *•' '  TJie  Holy  Ghost  (to  Ilvsu'ia  ro 
^Aytnv)  fell  on  all  them  that  heard  the  wo?-d,^  rd  Ilveup-a,  i.  e.,  the 
author  of  the  gifts  mentioned  in  v.  46.  11:46,  'I  remembered 
the  declaration  of  the  Lord,  Johii  indeed  baptized  with  water,  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;''  i.e.,  had  it  brought  to 
mind  with  a  new  sense  of  its  meaning  and  application.  The 
Saviour  had  promised  to  bestow  on  his  disciples  a  higher  baptism 
than  that  of  water,  and  the  result  proved  that  he  designed  to 
extend  the  benefit  of  that  promise  to  the  heathen  who  should 
believe  on  him,  as  well  as  to  the  Jews." 

Professor  Hackett  not  only  thinks  that  this  was  a  baptism,  but, 
with  that  of  Pentecost,  "  a  higher  baptism  "  than  with  water. 

The  translator  (anonymous)  of  the  Baptist  Version  of  Acts  says 
in  a  note  on  10  :  44,  "  '  The  Holy  Ghost  (rt)  ll>eufj.a  rd  'Aycov)  fell  upon 
alV  The  Holy  Spirit  represents  not  a  spirit  of  God,  nor  an  angel 
of  God,  but  all  Divinit}^,  and  Divinity,  too,  in  all  its  grandeur.  .  .  . 
We  thank  God  that  we  can  have  the  full  assurance  of  understand- 
ing that  Uvsufia  'A/cov,  like  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  divinely  established 
designation  of  the  Christian's  Advocate  and  Sanctifier.  ...  In 
the  Christian  currency  Ihsh/jLa  ^Ayiov^  to  nveu/j.a  ro  'Ayiw^  and  to  'Ayion 

7 


98  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

flvsofia^  are  like  (>  ly^trow;^  Iri<T()uq  Xpiffrn(;^  and  6  frjffou^  6  XptffTo^.  .  .  . 
That  which  is  ascribed  to  Ihtviia  is  ascribed  to  to  Tlvzuim^  and  to 
llvsup-a  'AytDv,  and  to  TO  ^Ayiov  ilveo/m,  and  to  make  it  superlative  to 
TO  HveTjim  TO  ^ Ayiov^v^hxch.  caps  the  climax  of  grammatical  precision 
and  of  exegetical  development;  v.  47,  ''Who  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we.'  They  had  received  to  Ilveufm  to  "^ AyioM^ 
that  same  to  lh£uij.a  to  'Ayiov  of  which  he  had  spoken,  and  they  had 
witnessed." 

11 :  15.  "  ^The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  begin- 
ning.'' .  .  .  The  interval  between  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles  at  Csesarea,  is  about  seven  or  eight  years. 
.  .  .  This  scene  in  Csesarea  and  that  in  Jerusalem  are  called — 
and  they  are  the  only  scenes  that  in  Holy  Scripture  are  called — 
the  Baptism  or  immersion  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  spoke  as 
fluently  in  foreign  tongues  as  in  their  vernacular.  The  display 
was  sensible,  visible." 

This  translator  insists  in  the  strongest  terms  on  the  divine 
personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  He  is  the  executive  Agent 
in  effecting  this  baptism, w^hence  these  conclusions  follow:  1.  The 
preposition  in  the  phrase,  "  He  shall  baptize  you  iv  nveuimTt  'Ayiut,'' 
should  be  translated  by ;  2.  The  executive  Agent  in  effecting  a 
baptism  cannot  be  the  quiescent  element  in  which  such  baptism 
is  effected  by  somebody  else.  For  this  double  reason,  therefore, 
there  is  no  such  thing  in  Scripture  as  a  "  Baptism  i^i  the  Hoi}' 
Ghost."  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is — 6  BanTc^wv  iv  Ih^eufiuTc  'Ayioj — 
invested  measurelessly  with.,  and  therefore  baptizes  by,  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

Saul's  baptism. 
Acts  9:17,18,-  22:13-16;  26:14-18. 

'0  Kiipioc  nnearaTiKe  fiE,  .  .  .  OTTug  avn0?Jxj>7jc  Kal  ■KlrjaOrig  Uvev/j-aTog  'Aycov. 
.  .  .  ave^^eipi  re  rrapaxpvi^^^i  "Q^*  •avaarag  e^awriaOr). 

'Avaarag  ^aTTTiuai  Kal  cnrdAovcjai  rag  dfiapTcag  aov,  EiviKa?ie(jdfiEvog  to  bvojia 
Tol)   Kvpiov. 

Elf  ovg  vi'v  ce  aTrooTEAAw. 

"The  Lord  hath  sent  me  .  .  .  that  thou  mightost  receive  thy  sight  and 
be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  .  .  .  And  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and 
rising  wus  baptized." 

"  Brother  Saul,  look  uj) !  And  the  same  hour  I  looked  up  upon  him.  .  .  . 
Rising  baptize  thyself  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord." 

"  Delivering  thee  from  the  Gentiles  unto  whom  now  I  send  thee." 


Saul's  baptism.  99 

What  was  SauVs  baptism  ?      Who  was  his  baptize?'  ? 

This  baptism  presents  some  peculiarities  wliicli  render  its  right 
interpretation  a  matter  of  special  interest  while  it  is  attended  with 
more  than  ordinary  difficulty.  The  conversion  of  the  individual 
baptized  separates  his  case  from  that  of  all  othei's.  The  narra- 
tive of  the  baptism  is  given  by  different  persons  with  difference 
in  circumstance  and  in  language ;  and  not  only  so,  but  in  terms 
differing  from  those  used  in  any  other  baptism.  The  immediate 
call  of  this  individual  b}'  the  Head  of  the  church  while  a  Perse- 
cutor of  himself  (through  his  people)  to  fill  the  Apostleship,  takes 
him  not  only  out  of  the  ranks  of  ordinary  Christians  and  ordinary 
gospel  agencies,  but  makes  him  stand  alone  among  the  Apostles. 
These  peculiarities  extend,  I  think,  to  his  baptism.  Whenever 
God  departs  from  his  ordinary  ways  in  providence  or  in  grace, 
there  is  always  a  reason  for  it  and  instruction  to  be  derived  from 
its  study.  And  whenever  tliere  is  a  departure  from  the  accus- 
tomed language  of  Scripture  there  is  a  reason  for  it,  and  it  should 
not  be  slurred  over  but  should  be  made  the  sultject  of  special 
study,  with  the  assurance  tliat  there  is  "  hid  treasure  "  in  it. 

So  far  as  I  am  able  to  understand  this  baptism  it  was  a  baptism 
for  the  Apostleship  and  was  substantially  the  same  as  that  re- 
ceived by  the  other  Apostles  at  Pentecost,  incidentals  (growing 
out  of  the  peculiarities  of  that  case)  not  being  introduced.  It  is 
usually  supposed  to  be  an  ordinary  ritual  baptism.  Were  the 
purpose  of  this  Inquiry  no  higher  than  to  make  points  against 
the  theory  this  baptism  might  be  allowed  to  stand  as  it  is,  a  thorn 
hedge  against  all  rational  progress  toward  a  dipping,  but  wishing 
to  know  what  is  truth,  as  developed  by  usage  on  this  subject,  I 
will  endeavor  to  examine  this  case  as  presented  by  divine  inspi- 
ration and  submit  it  to  the  judgment  of  others  wiser  than  myself. 

Was  this  a  case  of  dipping  into  Water  f 

"I  see  nothing  in  Paul's  case  to  prevent  his  immediate  immer- 
sion "  (Carson,  p.  357).  "  For  immersion  he  must  go  to  the  water  " 
(Campbell,  p.  170).  To  maintain  the  view  that  this  baptism  of 
Saul  was  a  "  dipping  into  water,"  there  is  no  claim  made  for 
any  such  express  statement,  nor  is  it  claimed  that  water  is  ex- 
pressly mentioned,  nor  is  it  claimed  that  the  place  (a  house)  nec- 
essarily implies  the  presence  of  water  suitable  for  dipping  ;  but 


100  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

it  is  said:  1.  The  word  means  to  dip;  2.  Water  essentially  be- 
longs to  ritual  Christian  baptism  ;  3.  Therefore,  although  no 
statement  is  made  of  a  dipping  into  water,  and  although  no  ap- 
pliances for  such  dipping  are  suggested  by  the  circumstances, 
still,  the  water  must  be  supplied  bj'  ellipsis  and  so  supplied  that 
there  may  be  a  dipping  into  it. 

To  this  it  may  be  replied:  1.  The  word  does  not  mean  "  to  dip." 
The  shore  of  the  sea  is  not  dipped  into  the  rising  tide,  but  it  is 
"  baptized  "  by  it.  2.  It  does  not  mean  to  cover  momentarily.  The 
ships  "baptized  at  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber"  have  been  under 
cover  two  thousand  years.  3.  It  does  not  always  require  a  cover- 
ing. The  altar  on  Carmel  was  "  baptized  "  by  water  poured  upon 
it,  yet  was  not  covered.  4.  A  fluid  ma^^  be  employed  in  a  baptism 
and  not  be  used  for  dipping  into  it.  Men  are  "  baptized  "  by 
wine  without  being  dipped  into  it.  5.  Therefore  the  use  of  the 
word  in  any  case  of  baptism  does  not  necessitate  a  dipping  or  a 
covering. 

In  reference  to  the  necessary  presence  of  water  for  ritual  bap- 
tism, it  may  be  said  ;  1.  The  necessary  presence  of  water  in  ritual 
Christian  baptism  is  admitted;  2.  The  presence  of  water  in  ritual 
baptism  for  dipping  the  person  to  be  baptized  into  it,  is  denied  ; 
3.  There  are  other  baptisms  in  the  New  Testament  than  ritual 
baptisms  and  in  them  water  is  not  present;  4.  The  Apostles  were 
baptized  without  the  presence  of  water ;  5.  This,  was  the  baptism 
of  an  Apostle;  6.  It  may  have  been  a  1>aptism  like  that  of  the 
other  Apostles  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  without  water;  7.  A  ritual 
baptism  must  be  proved  not  assumed;  and  when  this  is  proved,  it 
must  farther  be  proved  (against  philology,  and  grammar,  and 
facts),  not  assumed,  that  the  water  is  pi'esent  in  ritual  baptism 
for  a  dipping  and  not  as  a  symbol. 

On  the  supposition  that  this  was  not  ritual  baptism  the  M-ay  is 
open  for  one  of  two  conclusions  :  1.  Ritual  baptism  may  have  been 
received  at  some  after  time;  2.  One  called  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  introduced  into  the  Apostleship  "  not  of  man  nor  by 
man"  but  personally  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  did  not  need  and 
could  not  suitably  receive  a  s^'mbol  rite  from  man,  but  needed  onl^'^ 
(as  John  the  Baptist)  to  be  baptized  "  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Was  Saul  now  called  to  be  an  Apostle  ? 
This  is  a  radical  question  in  determining  the  nature  of  this 


Saul's  baptism.  101 

baptism.  If  Saul  was  not  now  called  to  the  Apostleship  then  he 
could  not  receive  the  baptism  of  an  Apostle  ;  but  if  he»  was 
so  called  then  the  question  arises,  Was  this  a  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  qualif}'  him  for  his  life  mission,  or  was  it  a  rite  introduc- 
ing him  as  a  private  member  into  the  visible  church  ? 

The  evidence  that  Saul  was  already  called  to  the  Apostleship 
is  of  the  most  explicit  and  positive  character.  Luke  testifies, 
Acts  9  :  15,  "  The  Lord  said,  he  is  a  chosen  vessel  unto  me,  to 
bear  my  name  before  the  Gentiles,  and  kings,  and  the  children  of 
Israel."  Ananias  says.  Acts  22:14,  "The  God  of  our  fathers 
hath  chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldst  know  his  will,  and  see  that 
Just  One,  and  shouldst  hear  the  voice  of  his  mouth.  For  thou 
shalt  be  his  witness  unto  all  men  of  what  thou  hast  seen  and 
heard."  Paul  testifies.  Acts  20  :  16,  17,  "I  have  appeared  unto 
thee  for  this  purpose,  to  make  thee  a  minister  and  a  witness  both 
of  these  things  which  thou  hast  seen,  and  of  those  things  in  the 
which  I  will  appear  unto  thee ;  delivering  thee  from  the  people, 
and  from  the  Gentiles,  unto  whom  now  I  send  thee  {dKoareUujy^ 
=  make  thee  an  Apostle. 

This  point  is  then  settled  beyond  question — ^Saul  was  now  called 
by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Apostleship. 

Was  this  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  qualify  for  the 
Apostleship  ? 

The  way  is  now  fairly  open  for  the  question.  Did  Saul  now  re- 
ceive the  ordinary  ritual  baptism  of  Christianity  or  the  extraor- 
dinary and  real  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  already  received  by 
his  fellow  Apostles  ?  Those  who  think  that  they  can  find  the 
materials  for  a  dipping  into  water  in  this  narrative  will  bring 
forth  their  hidden  treasures ;  as  I  see  none  I  wiU  pass  on  to  ad- 
duce the  evidence  for  that  "  higher  baptism"  which  Professor 
Hackett  says  had  been  promised  to  the  Apostles. 

In  the  prosecution  of  this  purpose  let  us  inquire  for  what  ob- 
ject Ananias  was  sent  to  Saul.  This  information  is  given  us  by- 
Ananias  himself  in  9  :  H,  "  Brother  Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus, 
that  appeared  unto  thee  in  the  way  as  thou  camest,  hath  sent  me, 
that  thou  mightest  receive  thy  sight.^  and  be  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.''''  The  mission  of  Ananias,  then,  was  definite  and  limited.  It 
embraced  two  specific  results,  the  one  physical,  the  other  spiritual; 
1,  the  restoration  of  sight ;  2,  the  being  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 


102  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

These  questions  now  arise:  Did  Ananias  go  on  his  mission?  Do 
we  know  tlie  results  of  his  mission  ?  Both  these  questions  are 
expressly  answered  by  the  Scriptures  in  v.  It,  "Ananias  went  his 
way,  and  entered  into  the  house,  and  putting  his  hands  on  him  .  .  . 
immediately  there  fell  from  his  e3'es  as  it  had  been  scales :  and  he 
received  sight  forthwith  and  rising  wan  bajytized."  Here  are  two 
results  declared  to  be  consequent  on  the  mission  of  Ananias:  1. 
Saul  received  his  sight ;  2.  Saul  was  baptized.  Are  these  two 
things  those  same  two  things  for  which  Ananias  was  sent  ?  There 
can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  first,  for  it  is  stated  in  precisely  the 
same  terms  ;  but  how  is  it  as  to  the  second,  which  is  not  stated  in 
the  same  terms  ?  Wh}',  clearly,  if  this  baptism  which  Saul  re- 
ceived was  a  dipping  into  water,  then  it  was  not  being  "  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  and  if  it  was  not  being  "  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  then  a  second  thing  which  did  not  eater  into  the 
miasion  of  this  messenger  was  done  by  him,  and  that  second 
thing  which  did  enter  into  his  mission  was  left  undone. 

But  do  the  Scriptures  say  that  this  baptism  was  a  ritual  bap- 
tism ?  Do  they  intimate  that  there  was  water  adequate  for  a  dip- 
ping ?  Do  they  say  that  there  was  a  particle  of  water  touched  by 
Saul  or  Ananias,  or  was  present  in  the  room  or  house  ?  They  do 
not.  But  the  theory  says,  "  I  do  not  care ;  I  will  find  a  bath  in 
the  room,  or  I  will  take  him  out  of  the  house  to  some  Arbana  or 
Pharpar,  and  dip  him  there."  This  compelled  addition  to  the 
Scripture  narrative  reminds  us  of  the  fact  (almost  without  excep- 
tion), that  the  theory  is  unable  to  interpret  baptisms  in  the  Scrip- 
tures or  out  of  the  Scriptures  witliout  addition,  or  omission,  or 
self-contradiction,  or  appeal  to  most  irrational  figure.  Dr.  Carson 
sees  no  difficulty  in  the  way  to  Saul's  being  dipped  instanter  in 
his  chamber.  Why  not  add,  that  the  bath  was  provided  by  miracle 
as  the  sight  was.  miraculously  restored  ?  Tlie  President  of  Beth- 
any College  sees  as  little  diflficulty  in  "  going  to  the  water  "  in 
some  river  of  Damascus,  better  than  all  tlie  waters  of  Judea.  W\\y 
not  keep  on  to  the  Jordan  ?  Such  absolute  additions  to  the  word 
of  God  are  without  justification  from  a  solitary  word  of  Scripture 
saying  that  "  dipping  "  entered  into  baptism,  or  a  solitanj  fact 
showing  that  a  man  or  woman  was  ever  put  under  water  in  bap- 
tism. But  if  Saul  was  not  "dipped  into  water"  when  he  was 
"baptized,"  what  was  the  baptism  which  he  received,  and  why  is 
it  stated,  that  he  "saw  and  was  baptized,''^  and  not  that  he  "saw 
and  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost "  ?   I  answer :  the  baptism  which 


Saul's  baptism.  103 

this  newly  called  Apostle  received  was  the  same  baptism  which 
his  fellow  Apostles  had  already  received  according  to  the  promise 
of  that  Lord  who  had  now  called  Saul,  when  he  said,  "  Ye  shall 
be  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  Tlie  accompaniments  of  the 
original  baptism  (sound  as  of  wind,  tongues  as  of  fire)  were  inci- 
dentals attendant  upon  the  baptism,  and  not  essentials  entering 
into  its  execution.  Saul  (=  Paul)  in  after  life  is  found  "  endued 
with  power  "  for  all  entering  into  the  Apostolic  office,  '•'  speaking 
with  tongues  more  than  they  all,"  which  power  he  received  now, 
or  we  are  never  told  by  Scripture  when  he  did  receive  it.  It  is 
said  that  he  "  saw  and  was  baptized,''''  and  not  that  he  "  saw  and 
was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,^'  simply  because  the  two  phrases 
have  the  same  identical  value.  To  be  '■'■filled  with  the  H0I3' 
Ghost  "  and  to  be  "  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost "  squarely  cover 
the  same  idea,  namely,  to  be  thoroughly  under  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  If  any  one  should  object  to  the  addition  "  baptized  " 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  justifying  answer  is  this:  "baptized"  al- 
wa^'s  requires  some  ellipsis  in  the  New  Testament ;  that  ellipsis 
(so  far  as  agency  is  concerned)  may  be  iv  udarc  (symbol)  or  ^i^ 
nvEOjiart  'Aycu)  (efficient)  ;  because  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
just  as  surely  established  as  baptism  by  water.  This  is  a  general 
justification  for  the  right  (under  ellipsis)  in  any  absolute  use  of 
j3anTc^u>,  to  present  the  claim  of  iv  Iheu/ia-i  ' Ayiw  for  recognition. 
The  special  justification  in  this  case  is  :  I.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
promised  that  the  Apostles  should  be  baptized  iv  rivsu/xarc  ^Ayiai 
and  not  Iv  udarc,  and  this  was  the  bajAism  of  an  Apostle.  2.  The 
Apostles  when  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost  are  said  to  be  '■'•  full 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  phrases  are  used  interchangeably  and  as 
of  equal  value,  as  shown  by  Acts  1  :  5.;  2  :  4.  3.  Saul  was  to  be 
"filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost"  by  promise,  and  in  the  fulfilment 
he  is  said  to  be  "baptized" — with  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  necessity; 
(1)  because  the  right  to  such  ellipsis  (as  possible)  has  been  estab- 
lished, (2)  because  the  exigencies  of  the  passage  demand  it,  (3) 
because  the  introduction  of  a  dipping  into  vmter  sets  at  naught 
the  promise,  and  introduces  an  element  wholly  foreign  to  the 
specialty  of  the  case.  The  promise  to  the  band  of  the  Apostles 
was  that  they  should  be  "  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  the  fulfil- 
ment of  this  promise  is  not  verballj'^  recorded  as  a  baptism,  but 
as  being  ^'■filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  while  reversely  in  the  case 
of  this  last  of  the  Apostles,  the  promise  was  that  he  should  be 
^^  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  is 


104  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

described  as  a  "  baptism."  4.  Tlie  Apostles  were  to  "  receive 
(3iva/j.c'^)  power  after  the  Holy  Ghost  came  upon  them."  Saul  after 
his  baptism,  like  Peter,  "straightway  preached  Christ"  and  "he 
was  clothed  with  power  (Iveduya/jMum).''^  How  the  double  promise 
could  be  more  clearly  declared  to  have  had  its  precise  double  ac- 
complishment I  cannot  well  imagine.  Everything  entering  into 
the  specialty  of  the  case  makes  imperative  demand  for  a  baptism 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  just  as  imperatively  rejects  a  baptism  by 
dipping  into  water. 

'Avil3Xe(l>i  T£  -napa^pr/fia  xai  avaara.':  l^aizriaOri. 

The  Cod.  Sin.,  the  Syriac,  the  Vulgate,  and  other  versions  omit 
Tzapaypyiim.  The  particles  re  .  .  .  y.di  show  a  unity  of  relation  in 
the  statements  with  which  they  are  connected.  While  "  he  received 
sight  "  is  accessory  and  adjunctive  (rs)  to  "  there  fell  from  his  eyes 
as  it  had  been  scales,"  the  whole  statement  "  there  fell  from  his 
eyes  as  it  had  been  scales  and  he  received  his  sight  "  is  dependent 
on  the  statement  "  putting  his  hands  on  him ;"  and  no  less  the 
conjunctive  (za))  statement,  "rising  he  was  baptized,"  is  dependent 
on  the  same  fact,  to  wit,  "  the  putting  his  hands  on  him."  If 
we  omit  the  intervening  words  explaining  the  design  of  the  act, 
namely,  that  through  it  the  Lord  was  to  give  sight  and  to  fill  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  bring  together  the  act  and  its  results,  it 
would  read  thus  :  "Putting  his  hands  on  him,  immediatel}^  scales, 
as  it  were,  fell  from  his  e3'es  and  he  saw,  alao  "  (in  addition  to 
this  and  associated  with  the  same  fact)  "  rising  he  was  baptized," 
being  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  relation  between  d'>a/7ra? 
and  i^ar.zidOri  is  not  that  of  an  antecedent  act  after  the  doing  of 
which  some  consequent  act  is  done,  but  the  thought  in  the  parti- 
ciple is  intimately  and  coincidently  related  to  the  thought  in  the 
verb.  If  avaaxac,  expresses  the  physical  act  of  "  rising,"  it  does 
not  imply  that  subsequently  to  this  act  another  act  disconnected 
with  it,  to  wit,  a  dipping  into  water,  took  place,  but  that  the  bap- 
tism was  coincident  with  the  rising;  in  other  words  Saul  rose  up 
a  baptized  man,  thoroughly  changed  in  condition  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  If  this  participle  denotes,  as  Professor  J.  Addison  Alex- 
ander (in  loc.)  seems  to  suppose,  a  mental  and  moral  romping 
"from  his  previous  prostration  and  inaction  "  rather  than  a  phj'si- 
cal  rising,  the  coincidence  is  tlie  same.  If  the  participle  be  sup- 
posed to  have  an  adverbial  force,  as  stated  by  Winer  (p.  608)  of 


ALEXANDER    CAMPBELL.  105 

Luke  15:  18,  '•'' ^'mazd-c,  -opeuaoiiai^  I  will  forthwith  go,"  and  we 
translate  "  he  was  forthwith  baptized  "  by  the  Holy  Grhost,  the 
same  intimacy  of  relation  is  preserved,  and  the  sight  and  the  bap- 
tism are  alike  dependent  on  "the  putting  on  of  hands,"  and  ''im- 
mediately "  consequent  upon  that  act.  In  other  words  as  Saul 
was  commissioned  (Acts  26  :  18)  "to  open  the  eyes  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,"  so  now  his  own 
eyes  (both  of  the  body  and  of  the  soul)  were  opened  to  the  light 
of  the  sun  and  to  the  knowledge  of  God. 

Alexander  Campbell,  President  of  Bethany  College. 

The  view  of  this  phrase  as  given  by  Alexander  Campbell  is  as 
follows :  "  In  Luke's  writings  alone  we  have  this  idiom  eight 
times.  Anastas,  with  an  imperative  immediately  following,  and 
without  a  conjunction  or  a  comma,  is  found  in  Luke  1*7:19; 
22  :  46  ;  Acts  9:11;  10  :  13,  20  ;  11:7;  22  :  10,  16.  In  every  in- 
stance it  indicates  a  command  from  the  Lord  in  person,  or  from  a 
supernatural  agent  acting  for  him.  Nothing  expressed  by  the  term 
rise  different  from  the  action  to  be  performed.  In  no  instance 
does  the  precept  arise  terminate  the  action.  It  never  means  two 
actions  in  any  one  case.  It  is  not  arise  and  be  baptized.  It  is  an 
idiom  of  expressing  one  immediate  action.  The  idiom  always 
changes  when  an  action  different  from  rising  up  is  intended. 
Another  imperative  form,  with  a  copulative  of  some  kind,  inti- 
mates two  actions,  as  in  Acts  8  :  26  ;  9  :  6,  34 ;  26  :  16.  In  all 
these  it  is  anasteethi,  foWowed  by  a  copulative,  rise  and  stand  upon 
thy  feet,  rise  and  go  into  the  cit}^  etc.  .  .  .  But  in  this  case,  rising 
is  no  more  than  an  adjunct.  It  is  not  a  distinct  precept ;  there- 
fore it  is  never  rendered  stand  up.  Almost  every  orator  uses  the 
term  Rise  when  an  erect  position,  or  a  mere  change  of  position,  is 
never  thought  of:  Rise,  citizens  I  rise,  sinners  !  and  let  us  do  our 
duty.  In  this  common  sense  import  of  the  term  did  Ananias  ad- 
dress Saul." 

This  view  strongl}'  sustains  the  interpretation  suggested. 

^Avaffzaq  j3d.T:Ti<rat  xai  anokooaai  raq  diiapriaq  auu,  liTualeffdixevoq  to 
ovoim  Tou  Kupiou. — AcTS  22  :  16. 

Acts  22: 12-16  differs  from  that  passage  now  examined  as  being 
more  full  in  statement,  and  with  material  variety  in  phraseology. 
This  applies  with  special  force  to  the  statement  of  the  baptism  as 


106  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

given  in  the  two  passages.  In  the  first  it  is  condensed  in  the  two 
words  avaa-aq  iiSanrifTOr^ ;  in  the  second  it  is  enlarged  into  fharrzd-: 
(idnTiffat  y.ai  d-okoufrai  ra?  d/j.apTiar  aao^  kituaXtfjdij.evoq  to  waij.a  rob 
Kupiiiu.  The  specially  new  element  in  the  second  account  is  the 
connection  of  the  baptism  with  the  personal  action  of  Saul ;  there 
is  nothing  in  the  first  account  to  forbid  such  an  element,  but  it 
does  not  there  make  any  appearance.  It  is  possible  that  it  may 
be  involved  in  the  undeveloped  dvaffrd^,  while  in  the  second  account 
the  enlargement,  by  stating  what  Saul  did,  is  but  explicatory  of 
the  n:ja<T:dq  by  which  the  call  upon  him  is  made.  The  baptism  in 
both  cases  is  spiritual.  The  unification  of  the  narratives  is,  in 
general,  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  first  states  the  baptism 
as  a  thing  accomplished,  and  the  other  states  the  means  for  such 
accomplishment.  A  combination  of  the  two  gives  the  following: 
"  Rising  baptize  th3'self,  and  wash  away  thy  sins  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord  ;  and  he  was  baptized."  It  will  be  observed 
that  the  force  of  the  middle  voice  is  retained  in  this  translation. 
A  discriminating  use  of  words  in  Scripture  has  alwaj'S  a  reason 
for  it,  and  our  business  is  not  to  change  the  statement  to  make  it 
accord  with  some  other  statement,  but  to  accept  it,  and  seek  for 
the  reason  of  it.  This  is  the  only  passage  where  [irxr^ri'^w  is  so 
used  in  the  middle  voice.  There  must  be  a  reason  for  it.  The 
whole  transaction  is  unique.  The  baptism  is  entirely  removed 
from  ordinary  baptisms.  There  is  nothing  in  the  teaching  of 
Scripture,  or  in  its  free  and  frequent  use  of  language,  to  prevent  a 
call  being  made  on  Saul  to  "baptize  himself  and  to  wash  away  his 
sins  by  prayer."  This  duty  laid  upon  him  toward  himself  rests 
on  precisely  the  same  basis  as  that  duty  toward  the  Gentiles  now 
imposed  upon  him,  "  To  open  their  eyes,  to  turn  them  from  dark- 
ness to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God  to  the  re- 
ceiving of  the  forgiveness  of  sins"  (Acts  26:18).  Now  Saul 
might  have  said  (as  Paul  did  say)  "Who  is  sufficient  for  these 
things?"  I  cannot  give  the  Gentiles  spiritual  sight;  I  cannot 
turn  their  hearts  from  error  to  truth ;  I  cannot  break  the  bonds 
which  bind  them  to  Satan  and  make  them  subject  to  the  living 
God.  And  yet  these  great  duties  were  made  imperative  upon 
him,  and  he  fulfilled  them  by  preaching  a  crucified  Redeemer. 
Just  so,  Saul  could  not  "  baptize  himself,"  and  could  not  "  wash 
away  his  sins,"  and  yet  could  do  both  by  "  calling  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord."  And  he  did  so.  He  was  baptized  b}'  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  his  sins  were  washed  away  in  answer  to  prayer  in  the 


HARMONY    WITH    OTHER    COMMANDS    OF    SCRIPTURE.      107 

nurae  of  the  Lord,  who  is  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the 
sins  of  the  world  and  baptizes  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  While  it  is 
contrary  to  all  Scripture  that  Saul  should  ritually  baptize  himself, 
and  just  as  contrary  that  ritual  baptism  should  wash  awaj^  sins, 
it  is  in  the  most  absolute  harmony  with  all  Scripture  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  should  he  given,  and  sins  should  be  pardoned  in 
ansicer  to  prayer. 

Structure  of  the  Sentence. 

The  sentence  "Baptize  thyself  and  wash  away  th}'^  sins,  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  is  a  compound  sentence,  in  which  the 
successive  clauses  develop  and  expound  the  preceding.  The  first 
clause  is  developed  and  expounded  as  to  its  character  and  effect 
by  the  second,  from  which  we  learn  that  the  baptism  is  spiritual 
in  its  nature,  and  possessed  of  the  power  to  take  away  sin ;  the 
third  clause  is  expository  of  the  means  by  which  this  baptism  is 
secured,  and  the  ground  of  its  efficiency,  namely,  hij  means  of 
prayer  and  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  translation  of  this  passage  from  the  Syriac  by  Dr.  Murdoch 
is  as  follows:  "Arise,  be  baptized  and  be  cleansed  from  thy  sins 
while  thou  invokest  his  name."  Here  the  baptism  and  the  cleansing 
from  sin  are  to  be  secured  by  prayer,  and  "  while  "  the  prayer  is 
being  made. 

This  baptism  is  the  same  as  that  preached  b}'  John  the  Baptist, 
who  makes  "  baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins  "  the  result  of 
"  repentance,"  and  therefore  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is 
the  same  baptism  as  that  preached  by  Peter,  "  Repent  and  be 
h&\^tized  into  the  remission  of  sins  (believing)  upon  (i-\)  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,"  where  repentance  is  presented  as  the  means, 
and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  declared  to  be  the  ground  cause  of  the 
remission  of  sins.  The  entire  harmony  of  these  statements  with 
that  of  Ananias,  "  Baptize  thyself  and  wash  away  thy  sins  calling 
on  (iTTi)  the  name  of  the  Lord,'^  is  obvious. 

Harmony  with  other  commands  of  Scripture. 

Isaiah  1:10-18,  "Wash  you,  make  you  clean,  ....  Though 
your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  as  white  as  snow;  though 
they  be  red  like  crimson,  they  shall  be  white  as  wool." 

The  parallelism  is  complete  as  to  the  call  personally  to  "  wash 
themselves"  spiritually,  and  to  "cleanse  themselves"  from  moral 


108  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM.     • 

pollution  :  while  the  traiislbrraation  of  scarlet  and  crimson  guilt 
into  snowy  purity  is  still  to  come  from  God.  Again,  Ezekiel  18  : 
30,  31,  "Repent  and  turn  yourselves  from  all  your  transgressions, 

so  iniquity  shall  not  be  your  ruin Make  j^ou  a  new  heart 

and  a  new  spirit,  for  why  will  ye  die  ?"  Can  sinners  "  repent  " 
and  "turn  themselves"  from  sin,  and  make  themselves  a  "new 
heart  and  a  new  spirit"  any  more  than  David,  who  declared  it  to 
be  God's  work  to  "  create  in  liira  a  clean  heart,  and  to  renew  in 
him  a  right  spirit"?  1  Peter  1:22,  "Ye  have  purified  your  souls, 
by  obeying  the  truth,  through  the  Spirit."  Here  is  a  declaration 
of  self-soul  purification;  but  it  is  '^  b}^  the  truth"  and  "  thi'ough 
the  Spirit."  And  again  prayer  is  the  specified  medium,  as  in 
Acts  2:  21,  "And  it  shall  corae  to  pass  that  whosoever  shall  call 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved."  Salvation  involves  the 
washing  away  of  sin  and  the  baptism  of  the  soul  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  this  is  secured  b^^  prayer.  What,  then,  can  be  more 
fully  harmonious  with  the  analogy  of  Scripture  than  a  call  upon 
Saul  to  baptize  himself  and  wash  away  his  sins  by  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord  (whose  name  is  Jesus,  because  he  takes  away 
the  sins  of  his  people),  and  who  is  their  "  Baptizer  by  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

As  a  Bitual  Baptism  no  just  and  safe  exposition. 

Doctor  Carson  (p.  212)  sa3's  on  this  passage:  "Here  we  see 
baptism  figuratively  washes  away  sins,  and  supposes  that  they 
are  truly  washed  away."  The  passage  says  nothing  of  "figura- 
tive "  washing  away  sin  by  water.  Such  addition  to  Scripture 
radically  changes  its  character.  The  removal  of  sin  is  real  and 
by  2^i'(i^ycr.  Prof.  Hackett  {in  loc.)  sa3's :  "  This  is  the  only  in- 
stance in  which  this  verb  occurs  in  the  middle  voice,  with  refer- 
ence to  Christian  bai)tism.  And  loash  away  thy  sins.  This  clause 
states  a  result  of  the  baptism  iu  language  derived  from  the  nature 
of  that  ordinance.  It  answers  to  etc  afs.<si\>  aiuipTtwv  in  2 :  38,  i.e., 
submit  to  the  rite  in  order  to  be  forgiven.  In  both  passages 
baptism  is  represented  as  having  this  importance  or  eHicacy, 
because  it  is  the  sign  of  the  repentance  and  faith  which  are  the 
conditions  of  salvation.  Calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
This  supplies  essentially  the  place  of  i.r:\  -w  ovojiari  'Irjaob  A'pcnToo 
in  2 :  38." 

Professor  Hackett  is  probably  as  far  removed  as  any  one  from 


NOT    RITUAL    BAPTISM.  109 

attaching  an  unscriptural  efficacy  to  ritual  baptism  ;  but  some  of 
tliis  language  can  only  be  explained  by  being  explained  away. 
If  "  tlie  washing  away  of  sin  "  is  language  which  states  the  result 
of  ritual  baptism  derived  from  its  nature,  what  language  will 
state  the  effect  of  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  derived  from  its 
nature  ?  If  men  are  to  be  told  "  to  submit  to  the  rtte  in  order 
to  he  forgiven.,''^  in  what  terms  shall  they  be  told  to  submit  to 
Christ  in  order  to  be  forgiven  ? 

The  interpretation  is  just  as  applied  to  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  remission  of  sins  through  Christ ;  but  when  applied  to 
ritual  baptism  it  shows,  tliat  the  wisest  and  tlie  best  are  compelled 
to  use  language  which  proves  that  their  feet  "  tread  on  slippery 
places." 

Alexander  Campbell  of  Bethany  (On  Baptism,  pp.  246-259), 
says:  "The  design  of  baptism  is  the  transcendent  question  in 
this  discussion.  John  proclaimed  'the  baptism  of  repentance /or 
the  remission  of  sins.''  Were  it  not  for  an  imaginary  incongruity 
between  the  means  and  the  end,  or  the  thing  done  and  the  alleged 
purpose  or  result,  no  one  could,  for  a  moment,  doubt  that  the  de- 
sign of  baptism  was  '  for  the  remission  of  sins.'  It  is  the  only 
purpose  for  which  it  was  ordained,  whether  in  the  hands  of  John 
or  of  the  twelve  Apostles.  Tlie  death  of  the  Messiah  was  not 
more  certainly  for  the  remission  of  sins,  so  fiir  as  the  expression 
goes,  than  was  the  baptism  of  John.  It  does  not,  however, 
follow  that  they  are  in  the  same  sense  '  for  the  remission  of  sins.' 
Baptism  is  ordained  for  the  remission  of  sins,  not  as  a  procuring, 
or  meritorious,  or  efficient  cause,  but  as  an  instrumental  cause, 
in  wliich  faith  and  repentance  are  developed  and  made  fruitful 
and  effectual  in  the  changing  of  our  state  and  spiritual  relations 
to  the  Divine  Persons  whose  names  are  put  upon  us  in  the  ver^'- 
act.  ^  He  that  belie veth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  sared.^  To  asso- 
ciate faitli  and  baptism  as  antecedents,  whose  consequent  is  sal- 
vation, will  always  impart  to  the  institution  a  preeminence  above 
all  other  religious  institutions  in  the  world.  '  Arise,  brother  Saul, 
and  be  baptized,  and  waah  away  thy  sins,  invoking  the  name  of 
the  Lord.'  A  most  unguarded  and  unjustifiable  form  of  address, 
under  the  sanction  of  a  divine  mission,  if  baptism  had  not  for  its 
design  the  formal  and  definite  remission  of  sins." 

President  Campbell  and  Professor  Hackett  do  not  differ  mate- 
rially in  the  language  which  they  employ  in  the  first  place  to 
characterize  ritual  baptism  ;   but  in  the  after-interpretation  of 


110  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

that  language  they  do  differ.  When  Professor  Hackett  says : 
"  Wash  away  thy  sins  "  is  "  a  result  of  ritual  baptism,"  and  is 
"language  grounded  in  the  nature  of  that  ordinance,"  and  that 
men  are  called  upon  to  "  submit  to  the  rite  in  order  to  be  forgiven," 
he  sa3's  of  the  "result,"  and  "  nature,"  and  the  "in  order  to," 
of  the  ordinance  just  what  Campbell  (initially)  saj's.  In  the  in- 
terpretation of  his  language  the  Professor  teaches  that  this  re- 
markable language  is  not  applied  to  ritual  baptism  on  its  essen- 
tial merits,  but  "because  it  is  the  sign  of  the  repentance  and  faith 
which  are  the  conditions  of  salvation."  This  interpretation  is 
not  obvious  in  the  language.  And  Campbell  denies  that  it  is 
there  at  all.  He  affirms  that  the  rite  is  not  a  "  sign  "  but  a  cause  ; 
not  illustrative  of  "  repentance  and  faith  as  the  conditions  of  sal- 
vation "  but  is  itself  a  condition,  side  by  side  with  them.  We  cor- 
dially accept  the  doctrine  reached  by  the  Professor  but  must  as 
absolutely  reject  the  terms  used  to  characterize  the  rite  ;  and  we 
accept  the  interpretation  of  the  President  as  justified  by  the  terms 
used  to  characterize  the  rite,  while  we  reject  those  terms  and  the 
doctrine  deduced  from  them. 

Alexander  Campbell  was  originally  a  Presbyterian  minister 
but  through  an  error  as  to  the  position  occupied  by  water  in  ritual 
baptism  his  feet  slipped,  and  he  became  a  Baptist.  Accepting 
the  language  which  he  there  found  taken  from  the  baptism  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  by  a  sad  error  misapplied  to  baptism  by  ivater, 
and  giving  to  it  an  obvious  logical  interpretation,  his  feet  further 
slipped,  and  he  became  the  head  of  a  bod}'  to  whom  he  taught 
that  ritual  baptism  was  a  "  cause  "  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
and  a  "condition  "  of  salvation.  The  feet  of  his  followers  being 
thus  placed  in  positions  so  slippery,  it  would  have  been  not  merely 
marvellous  but  miraculous  if  the  many  had  not  slipped  farther 
down  into  the  abandonment  of  limiting  definitions  (sometimes 
given  by  their  leader),  and  taken  them  at  their  full,  popular  value. 

It  is  without  Scripture  justification  to  say,  ^' the  washing  aivay 
of  sin  is  a  result  of  ritual  bai)tism."  Water  neither  washes  away 
sin,  nor  symbolizes  the  washing.  The  blood  of  Christ  washes 
away  sin,  and  "the  result"  is  purity.  This  accomplished  result 
(soul  purification)  is  symbolized  by  pure  water. 

It  is  WITHOUT  Scripture  justification  to  say,  ^Hhe  washing 
away  of  sin  is  language  derived  from  the  nature  of  ritual  bap- 
tism." This  language  is  derived  from  the  cleansing  power  of  the 
blood  of  atonement.    The  use  of  water  in  ritual  baptism  is  derived 


NOT    RITUAL    BAPTISM.  Ill 

from  the  same  source.  The  language  is  not  grounded  in  the 
ritual  shadow,  but  in  the  actual  blood  of  the  Cross.  "  These  are 
they  which  have  ivashed  their  robes  and  made  them  white  in  the 
BLOOD  OF  THE  Lamb  "  (Rev.  7  :  14). 

It  is  WITHOUT  Scripture  justification  to  say,  that  men  are 
called  upon  "  to  submit  to  the  rite  in  order  to  be  forgiven." 
There  is  no  semblance  of  any  such  language  in  Scripture  applied 
to  ritual  baptism.  It  is  solely  due  to  a  confounding  of  ritual 
with  real  baptism. 

Doctor  Pusey  (Scriptural  Views  of  Holy  Baptism,  p.  174) 
sa3's  :  "  It  is  commonl}'  thought  that  St.  Paul,  having  been  mirac- 
ulously converted,  was  regenerated,  justified  by  faith,  pardoned, 
had  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  before  he  was  baptized.  Not  so, 
however.  Holy  Scripture,  if  we  consider  it  attentive!}^ :  before  his 
baptism  he  appears  neither  to  have  been  pardoned,  regenerated, 
justified,  nor  enlightened.  .  .  .  What  took  place  during  those 
three  days  and  nights  we  are  not  told  beyond  a  general  intima- 
tion. .  .  .  But  as  yet  neither  were  his  sins  forgiven,  nor  had  he 
yet  received  the  Holy  Ghost ;  much  less  then  was  he  born  again 
of  the  Spirit,  befoi'e  it  was  conveyed  to  him  through  his  Saviour's 
Sacrament.  Ananias  says,  'Arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash 
away  thy  sins.'  This  was  done  ;  He  arose  and  was  baptized. 
By  baptism  he  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

There  is  no  material  difference  among  these  three  interpreters 
as  to  the  first  step  in  the  interpretation  of  this  Scripture.  With 
each  of  them  the  baptism  is  a  "ritual  "  baptism  ;  the  "  result  "  of 
the  baptism  is  the  washing  away  of  sin  ;  the  purpose  of  tlie  bap- 
tism is  "  i?i  order  to  be  forgiven."  From  this  common  basis  Pro- 
fessor Hackett  deduces  a  "  sign  ;"  President  Campbell  deduces 
an  "  instrumental  cause ;"  and  Dr.  Pusey  deduces  an  efficient 
sacra??ien^  thi'ough  which  is  obtained  "the  Holy  Ghost,  the  forgive 
ness  of  sin,  the  regeneration  of  the  soul,  and  justification." 

That  the  logic  of  this  last  interpreter  is  less  sound  than  that  of 
those  others  who  stand  with  him  on  the  same  accepted  premises, 
does  not  clearly  appear.  The  value  of  the  logic,  however,  is  not  a 
primary  concern  with  us,  but  the  value  of  the  premises.  These  we 
reject  with  a  peremptory  denial,  affirming  that  thej^  are  grounded 
in  a  fiction  ;  no  ritual  baptism  having  an  existence  in  the  case. 

We  may,  however,  learn  from  these  variant  interpretations  this 
instructive  lesson  :  Initial  error  is  the  radiant  centre  of  many 
errors. 


112  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Irenaeus —  Chrysostom. 

It  has  been  shown  from  the  Scriptures  that  the  phrases  "  to  be 
baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  and  "to  he  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost "  are  used  by  them  as  equivalent  expressions.  The  form 
of  thought  as  expressed  in  primary  use  is  not  the  same  ;  but  the 
secondar_y  or  metaphorical  use  (indicative  of  effect  and  not  of 
form)  has  an  equal  value.  This  is  recognized  by  Irenaeus,  who,  in 
speaking  of  this  transaction,  substitutes  fiaTzritrdY^ac  for  "  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost "  in  the  announcement  of  his  mission  as 
made  by  Ananias.  This  is  his  language  (902) :  "  Paul  after  the 
Lord  sent  Ananias  to  him  (xa\  a'MJLfi?.i(,''ac  /.a}  fiar.rKrOi^-^a'.)  both  to 
receive  his  sight  and  to  be  baptized."  The  language  of  Ananias 
is — "  that  thou  mightest  receive  thy  sight  and  be  filled  ivith  the 
Holy  Ghost,^^  for  this  last  statement  Irengeus  substitutes  the  equiv- 
alent phrase — ^'■be  baptized''''  (with  the  Holy  Ghost),  the  single 
word  representing  the  entire  phrase. 

Chrysostom  very  pointedly  indicates  the  distinction  between 
baptism  "  into  the  name  of  Christ,"  and  "  baptism  by  calling 
upon  the  name  of  Christ:  "  "  Horn.  47,  '  Rising  baptize  thyself  and 
wash  away  thy  sins  calling  upon  his  name.'  Here  a  great  truth 
was  uttered;  for  he  did  not  say,  'Baptize  thyself  info  his  name  ;^ 
but  '  calling  upon  the  name  of  Christ ;'  this  shows  that  he  was 
God."  '"Baptize  thyself  into  the  name  of  Christ"  indicates  the 
nature  of  the  baptism  by  the  ideal  element  {into  the  name  of 
Christ)  to  which  the  soul  is  made  subject,  and  by  which  it  is 
imbued  with  its  sin-remitting  power ;  while  "  baptize  thyself 
CALLING  UPON  the  name  of  Christ''^  indicates  the  means  b}-  which 
the  baptism  is  attained,  namely,  by  invoking  divine  power. 

This  1)aptism  (by  its  general  unity  and  discriminating  differ- 
ences as  compared  with  the  Pentecost  baptism)  enforces  the  con- 
clusion, that  it  is  effected  by  a  wise  and  discriminating  divine 
Person,  and  not  "in  divine  essence,"  or  "in  abstract  spirit,"  or 
"w'the  Holy  Ghost"  (as  a  receptive  medium),  which  would 
necessitate  one  uniform  result  under  all  circumstances. 


BAPTISM    BY    THE    HOLY    GHOST.  113 

BAPTISM   AT    SAMARIA. 

Acts  8  :  15,  16. 

OlTEveg  KaraQavTE^  irpoGrjv^avTo  nepl  avTuv,  oTzug  ?id0io(ji  Uvev/xa  'Ayiov, 
Oi/nu  yap  fjv  en'  ovdevl  avruv  hirnTEirTUKOQ,  fj.6vov  6e  &e^a7rTiafievoi 

"Who  (Peter  and  John)  when  they  were  come  down  prayed  for  them, 
that  they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  as  yet  he  was  fallen  upon 
none  of  them,  only  they  were  baptized  into  the  name  o-f  the  Lord  Jesus." 

Baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

1.  This  is  properly  designated  a  baptism:  (1.)  Because  it  is 
inferable  from  the  statement  "  they  were  only  baptized  into  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  and  had  not  been  yet  baptized  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  enduing  them  with  miraculous  gifts.  The  one  bap- 
tism "only"  having  been  received  the  other  was  sought  for  them. 
(2.)  Because  the  same  term  {intnsTrrcDxo^')  is  here  used  as  is  used, 
Acts  8:44,  inineae^  in  describing  the  like  baptism  at  Caisarea. 
(3.)  Because  "the  receiving  (v.  17)  the  Holy  Ghost"  of  necessity 
effects  a  baptism="  subjecting  to  his  influence  and  imbuing  with 
his  virtue." 

2.  This  Tlvvjixa  'Ayiov  (v.  15)  for  which  prayer  was  made  was  the 
personal  Divine  Spirit.  This  is  certain  because  (v.  18)  in  answer 
to  their  prayer  to  Uvsuiia  rd  'Ayiov  was  given. 

3.  The  means  to  secure  this  baptism  was  the  same  (v.  15)  as 
that  used  by  Saul — prayer. 

4.  Prayer  was  accompanied  by  the  symbol  laying  on  of  hands, 
V.  17. 

5.  The  gift  and  consequent  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
accompanied  by  sensible  evidence  —  "When  Simon  saw  that 
through  the  laying  on  of  hands  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given."  If 
the  baptism  had  been  simply  spiritual,  without  sensible  evidence, 
Simon  must  have  been  ignorant  of  its  bestowal. 

If  objection  should  be  made  to  this  as  a  baptism  because  it  is 
not  verbally  so  designated,  the  insufficiency  of  the  objection  is 
shown:  1.  By  the  fact,  that  the  word  has  been  already  used  on 
other  like  occasions.  2.  By  the  fact,  that  neither  the  word  nor 
any  correspondent  word  is  used  in  the  narrative  of  the  Red  Sea 
passage,  and  yet  Paul  declares  there  was  "  a  baptism  of  Israel 
into  Moses  "  through  the  influence  exerted  by  the  double  miracle 
wrought  on  that  occasion,  namely,  "  the  division  of  the  sea," 
and  the  illumination  "  by  the  cloud." 

8 


114  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


BAPTISM    AT    EPHESUS. 

Acts  19  :  6. 

Kal  enMvToc  avTolg  tov  UaiTiOv  rag  X''^P(^C,  V^(^s  t^  Uvevfia  to  'Ayiot 
in'  u'vTohr,  iTialovv  re  yXuaaai.^  iial  'Kpoe(pijTevov. 

"And  when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on 
them,  and  they  both  spake  with  tongues  and  prophesied." 

Speaking  with,  Tongues  and  Prophesying. 

1.  When  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  on  them.  It  is  not  slated 
that  he  prayed,  but  doubtless  he  did  as  is  stated  in  Aets  8:  15, 
and  Acts  22:  IG,  in  the  case  of  his  own  baptism. 

2.  The  Holy  Ghost  came  upon  them.  This  to  nvEopM  to  "^ Ayiov 
was  undoubtedly  the  personal  Divine  Spirit.  It  is  the  fullest  and 
most  precise  form  by  which  such  announcement  could  be  made. 

3.  They  spake  both  with  tongues  and  p7'ophesied.  (1.)  Tlie 
thorougli  change  in  their  si)iritual  condition  hereby  announced 
is  absolute  proof  of  the  propriety  of  designating  such  change  as 
a  baptism ;  (2.)  The  power  to  speak  with  tongues  is  neither  an 
exclusive  evidence  nor  necessary  in  order  to  evidence  a  baptism 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  twelve  baptized  at  Pentecost  spake 
with  tongues;  these  twelve  baptized  at  Ephesus,  also,  spake  with 
tongues,  and  in  addition  "  [)rophesied."  Saul,  baptized  at  Da- 
mascus, neither  spake  with  tongues  nor  proi)hesied  (at  the  time, 
though  "  endued  with  power "  so  to  do  when  necessary)  ;  the 
scales  falling  from  his  eyes  was  a  sensible  token  of  the  Si)irit  of 
God  resting  upon  him.  (3.)  The  double  result  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
coming  upon  tliese  twelve  is  stated  in  a  manner  (iXdXouv  xs.  ylwaaai'z 
xdx  Ttpoecp-^rsuov)  SO  similar  in  form  with  the  result  of  the  H0I3'  Ghost 
coming  upon  Saul  (avifihij'e  re  m\  ifiazriafhi),  as  to  give  renewed 
proof  that  this  restored  sight  and  spiritual  baptism  was  also  a 
double  result  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

4.  The  introduction  of  this  new  element  of  "  prophesying  "  is 
fresh  evidence  that  bai)tism  is  l)y  a  Divine  Person  who  wisely,  as 
sovereignly,  discriminates  in  his  gifts.  And  if  this  be  so,  then 
the  rei)resentation  that  t'v  Hvennart  'Ayuo  is  a  quiescent,  receptive 
element  is  not  true. 

That  the  laying  on  of  the  hand  upon  the  head  was  believed  to 


SPEAKING    WITH    TONGUES    AND    PROPHESYING.        115 

be  adequate  to  effect  a  baptism  is  a  matter  susceptible  of  unques- 
tionable proof.  It  was  the  common  faitli  of  the  Patrists  that  they 
could  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  In 
Cyprian  (1061)  Successus  ab  Abbir  says:  "If  heretics  cannot 
baptize,  they  cannot  give  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  if  they  cannot 
give  the  Holy  Ghost,  because  they  have  not  the  Holy  Gliost, 
neither  can  they  spiritually  baptize."  This  spiritual  baptism  was 
effected  by  laying  the  hand  upon  the  head  and  prayer.  In  con- 
nection with  a  discussion,  respecting  the  baptism  of  heretics,  by 
the  Council  of  Carthage,  the  following  judgments  are  expressed: 
Cyprian,  1122.  Januarius  a  Lambese, "  I  judge  that  all  heretics 
must  be  baptized  (paenitentiae  manu)  by  the  hand  of  repentance;" 
Secundinus  a  Cedias,  "  They  who  fly  to  the  Church  must  be  bap- 
tized b}' repentance  "  (through  the  laying  on  of  hands);  Janua- 
rius a  Vico  Csesaris,  "  Those  whom  the  Church  has  not  baptized 
(per  paenitentiam  baptizemus)  we  must  baptize  by  repentance ;" 
Felix,  "Purged  by  the  sanctification  (lavacri  paenitentiae)  of  the 
washing  of  repentance  ;"  Adelphius,  "  Since  the  Church  may  not 
rebaptize  heretics,  but  (per  manum  baptizet)  may  baptize  b}^  the 
hand ;"  Marcus  a  Mactari,  "  Since  we  have  decreed  that  heretics 
(per  manus  impositionem)  must  be  baptized  by  imposition  of  the 
hand;"  Aurelius  ab  Utica,  "I  think  that  they  should  be  baptized 
(in  manu)  by  the  hand  of  repentance,  that  they  ma}'  receive  the 
remission  of  sins  ;"  Lucianus,  "  I  think  that  heretics  should  be 
baptized  by  imposition,  of  the  hand ;"  Felix,  "  That  they  may 
receive,  where  it  is  lawful,  the  grace  of  baptism  by  imposition  of 
the  hand." 

So  John  of  Damascus  (T.  261)  says:  "John  was  baptized 
(^lianrcffOyj)  by  putting  his  hand  upon  the  divine  head  of  his 
Master."  And  in  the  Acti  SancH  Thomse  it  is  said:  "And  put- 
ting his  hand  upon  her  head  he  sealed  her  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  many  others 
were  sea,led  with  her.  But  the  Apostle  ordered  his  deacon  to 
spread  a  table"  for  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as 
was  common  after  baptism.  The  editor  remarks,  "  Sealing"  was 
"a  most  ancient  and  most  frequent  designation  of  baptism." 
Firmilian  says,  "  Paul  baptized  again  wiih  spiritual  baptism 
(baptizavit  denuo  spiritali  Baptismo)  those  who  had  been  bap- 
tized by  John,  and  put  his  hand  upon  them  that  they  might  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Ghost." 

In  the  third  volume  of  TertuUian  (1195),  Anonymi  Liber ^  it 


116  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

is  said :  "All  the  disciples  having  been  baptized  by  water,  were 
baptized  again,  after  the  resun-ection,  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  and 
others  also  may  be  baptized  again  '  with  Spiritual  baptism,  that 
is,  by  the  imposition  of  hands  and  conferring  the  Holy  Ghost ' — 
(Baptisraate  spiritale,id  est  manus  irapositione  episcopi.et  Spiritus 
Sancti  subrainistratione").  Also,  1  lfi2,'"  The  blessed  apostle  Paul 
baptized  again  with  spiritual  baptism  those  who  had  been  baptized 
by  John  before  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  sent  by  the  Lord  (bap- 
tizavit  denuo  spiritali  Baptismo),  and  so  laid  his  hand  upon  them 
that  they  might  receive  the  H0I3'  Spirit." 

These  quotations  place  beyond  question  the  belief  in  "  a  bap- 
tism (per  manum,,  in  manu^  manu)  by  the  hand."  They  did  un- 
questionably believe  that  baptisms  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  giving 
"repentance"  and  "remission  of  sin,"  were  effected  by  the  lay- 
ing of  the  hand  upon  the  head.  They  did,  undonbterlly,  believe 
that  baptisms  were  effected  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
Ananias,  of  Peter,  of  John,  and  of  Paul.  They  saw  nothing  in 
the  nature  of  a  baptism  inconsistent  with  its  being  effected  by 
the  touch  of  the  hand.  Their  practice  was  grounded  in  this 
Scripture  practice.  Whether  their  interpretation  of  these  Scrip- 
ture facts  as  to  their  purport  was  right,  or  whether  their  perpetu- 
ation of  such  practice  was  just,  are  not  questions  now  to  be 
examined;  what  concerns  us  now  is  this, — men  who  had  every 
opportunity  to  know  the  essential  character  of  a  bai)tism  did 
claim  to  baptize  (manu,  in  manu,  per  manum)  by  the  hand  laid 
upon  the  head  ;  and  farther  claimed  tliat  the  baptism  so  effected 
was  (baptizare  spirilaliter)  a  spiritual  baptism.  We  ma}',  then, 
stand  unhesitatingly  on  this  foundation  and  affirm,  that  there  is 
no  olijection  whicli  can  lie  against  the  interpretation  of  the  laying 
on  of  liands  with  prayer,  by  the  Apostles,  as  eflFecting  baptisms 
by  tlie  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  these  baptisms  were  real 
baptisms,  and  not  a  meaningless  use  of  words.  They  effected  a 
thorough  change  in  the  condition  of  the  recipient.  In  these  bap- 
tisms by  the  hand,  the  hand  occupies  the  same  grammatical  posi- 
tion and  logical  relation  to  the  baptism  effected  as  does  the  water 
in  the  ritual  baptism  of  Christianity,  namely,  of  agency ;  in  the 
case  of  water  a  symbol  agency;  in  the  case  of  "the  hand  "  just 
what  character  of  agency  (symbol  or  efficient,  it  makes  no  matter 
to  tlie  argument)  it  may  please  the  Patrists  to  attribute  to  it. 
Hence  it  follows,  that  if  it  be  a  grammatical  or  logical  absurdity 
to  regard  "  the  liand  "  as  the  receptive  element  within  which  the 


SPECIAL    GIFTS    BAPTISM.  117 

baptism  takes  place,  it  is  just  as  absurd  grammatically  and  logic- 
ally (the  nature  of  the  hand  or  the  water  is  not  concerned  in  the 
argument)  to  make  water  the  receptive  element  within  which  the 
baptism  takes  place.  These  baptisms  by  touching  with  the  hand 
are  entirely  parallel,  in  principle,  with  the  Classic  baptisms  effected 
by  drinking  a  cup  of  wine,  eating  indigestible  food,  hearing  be- 
wildering questions.  How  much  of  dipping,  immersing,  covering, 
there  is  in  them,  "a  child  can  understand." 

In  view  of  such  usage  and  such  facts,  may  it  not  be  well  to 
reconsider  the  order  which  sends  "  the  angel  Gabriel  to  school," 
because  he  demurs  at  the  dictum — '■'' ^anri'^cu  means  dip,  and  noth- 
ing but  dip,  through  all  Greek  literature." 


BAPTISM   iv   Uveufiart  'AyiM  AT   CORINTH. 
SPECIAL    GIFTS. 

1  Cor.  12:13. 

Kal  yap  hv  tvl  HvevfjiaTi.  y/ielg  Travre^  etf  ev  au/xa  hjianTiadriiiev, 
*'  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body." 

Other  Beadings. 

No  other  readings  of  this  passage  are  met  with  except  such  as 
are  found  among  some  of  the  Patristic  writers.  Basil  (IV,  117) 
quotes  the  text  thus  :  Tlavrsq  yap  kv  ivt  aia/xazt  ei'c  Sv  Ilveufia  i^anvca- 
dyjfiev.  Whether  the  change  in  the  phraseology  was  designed  or 
not  we  cannot  tell;  but  this  is  certain,  the  course  of  Basil's  argu- 
ment required  a  baptism  into  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  he  got  it  in 
the  form  as  quoted  when  he  could  not  have  got  it  as  it  stands  in 
the  text.  No  one  would  think  of  making  iv  iv\  awfian^  as  pre- 
sented by  Basil,  the  receiving  element  in  this  baptism.  No  one 
would  hesitate  to  assign  this  duty  to  dq  iv  Llveufia.  By  parity  of 
reasoning  i.v  iv\  Uvsuimrt^  in  the  received  text,  cannot  be  the  re- 
ceiving element,  but  ek  h  aibixa  must  be. 

Didj'mus  Alexandrinus  (TH),  carrying  out  a  special  line  of 
argument,  quotes  the  passage  as  does  Basil,  reversing,  by  an 
intei'change  of  cases,  the  respective  relations  ascribed  by  the 
inspired  text  to  tv  Ilvedixa  and  eV  awiia  in  this  baptism.  The  entire 
revolutio    of  sentiment  by  this  exchange  of  preposition  and  case 


118  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

is  instructive.  The  double  presence  of  the  Dative  and  Accusa- 
tive cases  in  New  Testament  baptisms  (expressed  or  implied)  is 
the  rule ;  extraordinary  baptisms  are  the  exception.  The  law, 
that  the  Accusative  with  ei^  denotes  the  receiving  element,  has  no 
exceptions.  By  such  designation  the  nature  of  the  baptism  is 
made  as  definite  as  language  can  express  it.  In  the  New  Tes- 
tament, WATER  never  has  such  designation — eU  udiop. 

Clemens  Alex.  (I,  288)  quotes  the  passage  as  we  have  it  except 
by  the  omission  of  the  preposition  before  i'A  lIvsu/mTc ;  thus 
strengthening  the  idea  of  agency  which  so  clearly  belongs  to  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Translation. 

The  translation  of  this  passage  by  the  Baptist  version  is  as 
follows:  "For  by  one  Spirit  we  were  all  immersed  into  one 
body."  And  in  the  version  circulating  among  the  Disciples 
("  Campbellites  "),  by  H.  T.  Anderson,  the  translation  is  the  same, 
"  For  by  one  Spirit  we  all  were  immersed  into  one  body."  Both 
of  these  versions  translate  the  same  grammatical  forms  diversely 
in  other  passages,  e.  g.,  Matt.  3:  11,  "I  immerse  you  (h  v8ari 
kq  iJSTWMiiav)  in  water  unto  repentance.  .  .  .  He  will  immerse  you 
in  the  Holy  Spirit"  (Baptist  version);  "I  immerse  you  in  water 
in  order  to  repentance.  .  .  .  He  will  immerse  you  (iv  llveu/ian 
'Ayiu))  in  the  Holy  Spirit"  (Disciples'  version);  John  1 :  33,  "  The 
same  is  he  who  immerses  in  the  Holy  Spirit  (o'  iSanrtZwv  iv  fhsufiarc 
'Ayiaj^^)  (Baptist  version);  "This  is  he  that  immerses  in  the 
Holy  Spirit"  (Disciples'  version)  ;  Acts  1:5,"  For  John,  indeed, 
immersed  (udaTc)  in  water ;  but  ye  shall  be  immersed  {h  Uvs6i±ari 
'Ayiu))  in  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Baptist  version)  ;  "  For  John,  indeed, 
immersed  in  water,  but  j'ou  shall  be  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit " 
(Disciples'  version).  The  grammatical  form  (fiaizTt^co  with  the 
Dative  and  the  Accusative,  expressed  or  implied)  in  all  these 
cases  is  the  same ;  but  the  translation,  as  compared  with  the 
translation  of  1  Cor.  12:  13,  works  a  complete  revolution  in  the 
grammatical  and  logical  relations  of  the  elements  entering  into 
the  baptisms. 

In  Matt.  3:11,  the  preposition  with  its  regimen,  water  (iv  vdan) 
is  made  the  receiving  element  of  the  baptized  object,  while  the 
preposition  and  its  regimen  in  the  Accusative  (if?  fj-s-dvocav),  is 
wholly  dissevered  from  the  baptism  strictly  speaking,  and  is 
appended  to  it  as  an  end  "  unto  "  which  it  tends  but  never  reaches, 


SPECIAL    GIFTS    BAPTISM.  119 

according  to  the  Baptists;  and  "in  order  to"  which  it  is  ex- 
ecuted, but  which  it  never  effects,  according  to  the  Disciples. 
But  when  this  last  preposition  and  its  regimen  take  the  form  of 
e/c  afeffiv  d/xaprtcuv,  the  Baptist  version  still,  consistently,  says, 
this  phrase  does  not  enter  into  the  baptism,  but  is  something 
apart  from  it,  pointed  to  by  it  yet  never  reached  through  it; 
while  the  Disciples'  version^  adhering-  to  the  same  verbal  form 
("  in  order  to ")  declares,  that  while  "  immersion  in  water  in 
order  to  repentance"  is  a  worthless  fiction,  yet,  "immersion 
in  water  in  order  to  remission  of  sins"  is  the  very  power  of 
God,  and  as  truly  a  cause  (instrumental)  of  the  remission  of  sins 
as  the  blood  of  the  incarnate  Redeemer.  That  is  to  say,  the 
same  grammatical  form,  in  the  same  grammatical  and  logical 
relation  to  "  immersion  in  water,"  finds  that  relation  worthless 
"  in  order  to  repentance^^^  but  priceless  "  in  order  to  the  remission 
of  sins.'' ^  To  declare  that  inspiration  says,  "immersion  in  water" 
is  "mw-to  rei)entance,"  when  it  is  not  so;  and  "mw-to  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,"  when  it  is  not  so ;  and  "  in  order  to  repentance," 
and  "  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins,"  when  it  is  not  in  order 
to  the  former,  but  is  in  order  to  the  latter,  is  assertion  the  burden 
of  which  must  be  taken  from'  inspiration  and  laid,  where  it  be- 
longs, on  human  infirmity. 

But  all  this  is  changed  when  we  come  to  the  baptism  in  1  Cor. 
12:13.  The  same  grammatical  forms,  in  the  same  grammatical 
relations,  undergo  a  complete  revolution  as  to  the  ofl3ces  they  are 
to  sustain.  Now,  ^w  iv).  Iheoiiart.  instead  of  being  as  h  udazi^  kv 
lhebij.art.  'Aycw,  the  receiving  element  in  which  the  baptized  object 
is  to  be  received,  is  transformed  into  the  baptizing  agency  by 
which  the  baptism  is  to  be  effected  ;  and  ej'c  iv  (jd>,aa,  instead  of 
being  as  £l<;  /isrdwtav  an  end  "unto"  which,  or  "in  order  to" 
which,  immersion  is  powerless,  or  as  el-  acpzaiv  diiapricbv  an  end 
which  (whether  attained  or  not  attained,  according  to  the  one  or 
the  other  phase  of  the  theory)  is  outside  of  the  baptism,  is  in- 
troduced within  the  baptism,  and  becomes  so  vital  to  it  that  there 
can  be  no  baptism  without  it;  in  a  word  it  is  transformed  into  the 
receiving  element  within  which  "all  are  immersed." 

In  the  previous  volumes  will  be  found  the  evidence  in  proof 
that  the  translations  "  in  water  wnto,  in  order  to,  repentance," 
"  in  water  unto,  in  order  to,  the  remission  of  sins "  are  fatally 
erroneous ;  as  also,  "  immersion  in  the  Holy  Ghost  unto,  in  order 
to,  repentance  and  the  remission  of  sins."     The  true  translation 


120  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

in  every  case  is  that  which  the  translator  (Baptist  and  Disciple 
alike)  has  given  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  "  b}'  "  with 
with  the  Dative,  and  "into"  with  the  Accusative. 

The  translation  of  iv  by,  with  llvtviiari  and  its  variations,  which 
has  been  persistently  refused  up  to  the  present,  is  at  last  accepted, 
and  now  comes  by  the  handful,  as  we  have  it  so  translated,  in  a 
little  more  than  half  a  page,  no  less  than  five  times — Iv  Tlvebiiari 
6eoi>,  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  iv  Uvsn/iarc  " Ayita  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
twice  iv  TM  aoTuj  lIveu/jLart  by  the  same  Spirit,  ^i^  in  nfieu/iart  by  one 
Spirit. 

This  translation,  reached  in  the  responsible  task  of  translating 
the  Scriptures  by  two  branches  of  the  Baptist  body,  five  times  on 
one  page,  should  arrest  hard  speeches  against  others  when  they 
venture  to  translate  iv  "  6^,"  especiall}^  when  they  translate  iv 
[Iveunart,  iv  Uveu/xaTc  " Ayiw  by  the  Spirit,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
yet  more  especially  in  connection  with  baptism,  as  so  fully  indi- 
cated in  the  passage  before  us.  Also,  while  we  have  before  us  so 
encouraging  an  example  in  sk  iv  aSiim  into  one  body,  we  might  be 
held  scathless  for  translating  d'z  iJ-erdvoiav  into  repentance,  and  tl<; 
afsaw  d;xapTca)v  into  the  remission  of  sins.  And  with  the  conjoined 
translation  '■'■by  one  Spirit  into  one  body,"  we  may  enter  a  plea 
for  gentle  dealing  with  our  "  by  water  (symbolly)  into  repentance," 
"ftythe  Holy  Ghost  (really)  into  repentance,"  "6y  water  (sym- 
bolly) tnto  the  remission  of  sins,"  "  6y  the  Holy  Ghost  (really) 
into  the  remission  of  sins." 

While  we  accept  with  great  pleasure  the  change  of  "in"  for  by; 
and  of  "unto,"  "in  order  to,"  for  into;  we  must  decline  accepting 
the  old  "immerse."  We  do  so  for  these  reasons:  1.  It  violates 
the  theory  which  says,  "  /SaTrrt'Cw  means  dip  and  nothing  but  dip." 
Immerse  does  not  mean  to  dip.  No  word  can  by  any  possibility 
mean  distinctively  to  immerse  and  also  mean  distinctivelj^  to  dip, 
because  these  words  do  not  belong  to  the  same  class  ;  the  one 
makes  demand  for  condition  to  be  effected  in  any  wa}'  and  with- 
out limitation  as  to  the  time  of  its  continuance,  the  other  makes 
demand  for  an  act  definite  in  character  and  limited  in  duration. 
2.  A  burden  is  laid  upon  the  word  too  heavy  for  it  to  bear.  The 
theory  cannot  get  along  without  a  dipping.  It  must  have  a  dip- 
ping into  water  (a  putting  in  and  taking  out)  necessarily  limited 
as  to  duration  ;  but  none  of  these  elements  are  found  in  iSajzriXu}, 
and  to  force  it  to  such  duty  is  not  to  extract  from  it  such  mean- 
ing, but  to  commit  word-murder.     But  a  dipping  is  not  all  that 


SPECIAL    GIFTS    BAPTISM.  121 

the  theory  needs.  It  needs  just  as  much  the  right  opposite.  There 
is  a  "  baptism  into  repentance."  But  to  say  that  Christianity  in- 
culcates a  dipping  "  into  repentance  "  is  to  utter  lukewarm  non- 
sense which  the  Author  of  Christianity  will  "  spew  out  of  his 
,  mouth."  The  same  is  true  of  a  dipping  "  into  the  remission  of 
sins,"  a  dipping  "into  Christ,"  a  dipping  "  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  (as  in  the 
passage  before  us)  a  dipping  "  by  the  Holy  Spirit  into  one  body." 
The  theory  will  find  that  "  a  dipping  "  is  one  of  those  sorry  aux- 
iliaries which  to  keep  or  to  dismiss  is  alike  ruinous.  3.  This 
word,  immerse,  has  no  usage  correspondent  with  and  therefore  no 
power  to  express  the  characteristic  usage  of  the  Greek  word  in 
the  New  Testament.  It  is  admitted,  that  in  the  baptism  of  the 
Apostles  at  Pentecost  by  the  Holy  Ghost  there  was  no  dipping, 
or  immersing,  or  covering,  or  anything  like  the  one  or  the  other; 
but  the  baptism  consisted  in  "  being  subjected  to  a  controlling 
influence  and  imbued  with  its  virtue."  Now,  where  is  the  single 
instance  in  all  English  literature  in  which  "  immerse "  means 
"to  be  subject  to  an  influence  so  as  to  be  imbued  with  its  vir- 
tue "?  To  say  that  I  know  of  no  such  case  is  to  say  but  little; 
but  who  will  supplement  m}^  lack  of  knowledge  ?  If  the  Pentecost 
usage  stood  alone  the  defect  would  be  of  comparatively  small  con- 
sequence ;  but  this  is  only  a  representative  case  of  that  which 
prevails  through  all  the  New  Testament.  A  baptism  into  repent- 
ance is  "  a  subjection  to  influence  and  imbuing  with  virtue ; "  a 
baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins  is  "a  subjection  to  influence 
and  imbuing  with  virtue;"  a  baptism  into  Christ'is  "a  subjection 
to  influence  and  imbuing  with  virtue;"  a  baptism  into  one  body 
is  "  a  subjcQtion  to  influence  and  imbuing  with  virtue  ;  "  a  baptism 
into  water  (if  such  a  thing  could  be  found  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  happily  or  unhappily  cannot  be)  would  be  "a  subjection  to 
its  influence  and  imbuing  (the  lungs  at  least)  with  its  virtue  ;" 
but  the  theory  escapes  such  a  baptism,  while  insisting  upon  it,  by 
the  substitution  of  a  dipping.  4.  Any  such  use  of  the  foreign 
immerse  is  precluded  by  the  older  indigenous  words,  drench, 
soak,  steep,  etc.,  which  enter  into  that  usage.  5.  Another  remark, 
not  so  important  3'et  pertinent  as  showing  that  "  immerse " 
does  not  measure  the  Greek  word,  is  this :  In  English  immerse 
is  rarely,  if  ever,  used  with  the  preposition  into,  while  this  is 
emphatically  the  New  Testament  usage  of  ^aTtriZu).  Immersed  in 
does  not  differ  from  "  baptized  into  "  merely  in  failing  to  extract 


122  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

and  to  communicate  quality  to  its  object,  as  does  the  latter,  but 
it  farther  differs,  in  failing  to  express  complete  as  well  as 
thorough  change  of  condition.  To  be  immersed  in  business,  in 
pleasure,  in  study,  does  not  imply,  that  one  has  not  been  before 
a  man  of  business,  or  pleasure,  or  stud}',  but  gives  emphasis  to . 
their  prosecution.  But  it  is  not  so  with  "  baptized  into  repent- 
ance," "  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  "  into  Christ ; "  these  phrases 
imply,  that  one  has  not  been  before  in  a  state  of  repentance,  or 
of  remission,  or  relation  to  Christ,  but  passes  out  of  a  contrary 
state  into  these  wholl}'  new  conditions. 

For  these,  among  other  reasons,  we  reject  immerse  as  the  rep- 
resentative of /Jr/TTTtCw,  and,  also,  immerse  in  as  the  representative 
of  baptized  i7ito.  We  will  adhere  to  the  conceded  Pentecost 
meaning  for  the  Greek  word,  and  will  add  to  it  the  concession, 
that  in  baptism  iv  is  indicative  of  the  agency  by  which  it  is 
efl'ected,  and  that  eiq  points  out  the  receiving  element  into  which 
the  baptized  object  (suggestively)  passes.  This,  I  believe,  is 
about  all  that  we  need  by  way  of  concession  on  the  part  of  the 
friends  of  the  theory  to  secure  (in  good  time)  their  utter  aban- 
donment of  it. 

Interjjretation. 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  of  Princeton  (Comm.  in  loc),  says :  "  To 
be  baptized  iv  Ihsuimzi  cannot  mean  to  be  immersed  in  the  Spirit 
any  more  than  to  be  immersed  uoa-t^  Luke  3:16,  Acts  1  :  5,  can 
by  possibility  mean  to  be  immersed  in  water."  This  judgment  of 
Dr.  Hodge  as  to^the  force  of  the  nude  Dative  is  sustained  by  the 
general  judgment  of  scholars. 

Dr.  Pusey  (On  Baptism,  p.  IGG)  says:  "To  the  Galatians  St. 
Paul  inculcated  their  actual  unity  as  derived  from  having  been 
baptized  into  one  Christ;  so  here  again,  to  the  Corinthians  from 
their  having  been  baptized  in  One  Spirit;  thereby  showing  that 
to  be  baptized  into  Christ  is  to  be  baptized  in  the  One  Spirit;  and 
neither  is  the  baptism  of  Christ  without  the  Spirit,  nor  is  there  a 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  without  the  baptism  instituted  by  Christ." 

Dr.  Pusey  has  as  good  ground  for  saying  that  the  passage  under 
consideration  teaches  a  baptism  "  in  One  Spirit "  as  the  friends 
of  the  tlieory  have  for  saying  that  Matt.  3  :  11  or  Acts  1  :  5  teaches 
a  baptism  "  in  the  Spirit."  There  is  no  foundation  for  either 
statement.  There  is  no  "  baptism  in  the  Spirit  "  known  to  the 
New  Testament.    A  baptism  in  the  Spirit  can  by  no  rational  pos- 


PROFESSOR    RIPLEY.  123 

sibility  be  the  same  or  the  equivalent  of  a  "  baptism  into  Christ." 
John  the  Forerunner  (John  1  :  29-31 )  says,  that  baptism  by  water 
was  divinely  appointed  in  order  that  "Jesus,  as  the  Lamb  of  God 
that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,  should  be  made  manifest." 
Now  a  baptism  into  Christ,  as  an  atoning  redeemer  (=  "  making 
subject  to  his  influence  and  imbuing  with  his  virtue  ")  can  have  no 
other  issue  than  "the  remission  of  sins ;"  but  a  "  baptism  in  the 
Spirit,"  who  is  not  an  atoning  Redeemer,  can  by  no  possibility 
issue  in  "the  remission  of  sins."  Baptism  into  Christ  and  bap- 
tism in  the  Spirit  must  then,  of  necessity,  be  two  essentially 
diverse  baptisms.  But  there  is  only  "one  baptism"  which  is  dis- 
tinctive of  Christianity,  and  that  is  baptism  into  Christ,  the  Lamb 
of  God,  the  Crucified  of  Calvarj^ ;  therefore,  baptism  in  the  Spirit 
(if  there  were  any  such  thing)  could  not  be  Christian  baptism. 
But  there  is  no  such  thing  known  to  the  word  of  God  as  "  bap- 
tism in  the  Spirit ;"  it  is  purely  a  human  invention,  as  also  is  the 
idea  of  a  "  baptism  in  water." 

The  true  and  sole  relation  of  the  Hoh'  Spirit  to  Christian  bap- 
tism is  that  of  executive  Agent.  Thus  Dr.  Pusey  subsequently, 
though  not  consistently,  says :  "  For  in  baptism  the  Spirit  is  the 
Agent.  It  is  not  any  outward  or  visible  incorporation  into  any 
mere  visible  body  (since  for  a  mere  visible  union  there  needed 
not  an  Invisible  Agent),  but  an  invisible  ingrafting  into  Christ, 
by  the  invisible  working  of  the  Spirit.  What  St.  Chrysostom 
says  is  this :  '  That  which  caused  us  to  be  one  body,  and  regen- 
erated us,  is  One  Spirit :  for  the  one  was  not  baptized  by  the 
One  Spirit,  the  other  by  another ;  and  not  only  was  that  which 
baptized  us  One,  but  that  also  into  which  He  baptized  was 
One,' "  Now,  all  this  as  said  and  quoted  by  Dr.  Pusey  is  true  to 
the  letter.  If  there  was  any  ritual  water  in  his  mind  (there  is 
none  in  his  words,  there  is  none  in  the  Scriptures)  when  he  speaks 
of  "baptism,"  it  is  a  foreign  element  of  which  he  must  dispose 
himself,  we  have  no  concern  with  it,  and  he  should  have  none  ac- 
cording to  his  own  reasoning,  for  as  "  an  Invisible  Agent  is  not 
needed  to  incorporate  in  the  visible  church,"  so  a  visible  element 
is  not  needed  to  incorporate  in  the  invisible  church. 

Professor  Ripley. 

Professor  Ripley  (Christian  Baptism,  p.  52)  says  on  this  pas- 
sage :  "  The  same  Spirit  has  baptized  us  all,  so  that  we  have  all 
been  made  members  of  the  same  body ;  that  is,  we  have  all  most 


124  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

copiously  participated  in  the  same  Spirit's  influences;  an  idea 
very  naturally  flowing  from  the  radical  meaning  of  lianrtXo).^^  In 
a  note  he  adds  :  "  In  such  passages,  reference  is  made  to  the  abun- 
dant communications  of  the  Spirit;  an  idea  very  happily  conveyed 
by  the  use  of  the  word  baptize.  The  manner  of  the  communica- 
tion is  not  regarded ;  only  the  cojnousness.  Hence,  so  far  as  the 
administration  is  concerned,  no  argument  can  be  drawn  against 
immersion  as  being  the  only  baptism,  from  the  fact  that  the  Spirit 
is  elsewhere  said  to  be  poured  out^ 

These  statements  recognize:  1.  The  Spirit  as  the  Agent  in 
baptism.     Then,  the  baptism  is  spiritual.    Then,  the  Spirit  is  not 
a  receiving  element  in  which  men  are  baptized  ;  2.  "  All  are  bap- 
tized by  the  Spirit."     Then,  if  all  at  Corinth,  so,  all  everywhere, 
in  all  ages  (who  are  of  the  body  of  Christ)  are  baptized  "  by  the 
Spirit."     Then,  the  notion  of  such  friends  of  the  theory  as  limit 
baptism  by  the  Spirit  to  such  extraordinary  occasions  as  Pente- 
cost, is  foundationless  ;  3.  The  result  of  baptism  b}'  the  Spirit  is 
membership  in  the  invisible  church — "so,  all  are  made  members 
of  the  same  body."     Then,  in  the  real  church  of  Christ  "  all  "  are 
received  into  membership  by  baptism^  without  one  being  "  im- 
mersed."    These  statements  claim,  1.  That  baptism  by  the  Spirit 
imports  "  a  copious  participation  in  the  Spirit's  influences."    This 
is  a  mistake.     Baptism  has  no  necessary  relation  to  copiousness. 
Its  relation  is,  as  already  stated,  to  power,  competency  to  pro- 
duce an  effect.     Copiousness  may  be  associated  with  baptism,  yet 
never  proceeding  from  the  fact  of  a  baptism,  but  from  outside 
causes,  as  the  "  pouring  out  "  of  the  Spirit.     2.  "  Copious  par- 
ticipation is  happily  conveyed  by  baptize.^''     Baptize  does  not  in- 
volve, by  its  own  foi'ce, "  participation  "  in  influence  in  any  measure. 
A  flint  rock  cast  into  the  sea  is  baptized ;  but,  as  a  mass,  it  par- 
ticipates neither  in  the  wetness,  nor  in  the  saltness  of  sea-water. 
If  the  whole  Mediterranean  had  been  poured  through  the  pitchers 
of  Elijah  upon  the  altar  on  Mount  Carmel  there  would  have  been 
a  wonderful  copiousness  but  no  baptism  according  to  the  theory. 
A  certain  class  of  bodies  when  enveloped  by  a  fluid  are  penetrated 
and  pervaded  and  so  assimilated  to  the  quality  which  may  be 
characteristic  of  the  encompassing  fluid.     This  is  a  result  which 
is  due,  not  to  copiousness,  but  to  the  power  of  the  liquid  to  bring 
the  object  subjected  to  its  influence  under  the  control  of  its  char- 
acteristic.    This  eflect  produced  on  a  certain  class  of  bodies  be- 
comes the  basis  of  a  secondary  use  of  baptize  in  which  suchlike 


THE    BAPTIZER.  125 

effect,  however  induced,  is  called  a  baptism.  It  is  this  usage 
which  is  illustrated  at  Pentecost  and  throughout  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  which,  without  exception,  baptism  contemplates  effect 
without  covering.  The  four  water  pitchers  emptied  bj'  Elijah  on 
Carmel's  altar  had  no  relation  by  copiousness  to  the  baptism,  one 
would  have  sufficed  for  that ;  but  the  thrice  four  pourings  were 
necessary  to  extinguish  all  suspicion  that  "  fire  had  been  put 
under  "  the  sacrifice.  The  copious  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  at 
Pentecost  had  no  special  relation  to  the  baptism  that  day  effected, 
but  to  the  promise — ''  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days  that 
I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  on  all  flesh,"  which  promise  is  declara- 
tive of  profusion  not  in  one  case,  but  relatively,  throughout  the 
entire  Christian  dispensation  as  compared  with  those  which  had 
preceded  it.  Power  not  quantity  is  the  essential  element  in  Chris- 
tian baptism  and  in  ever}^  kindred  baptism. 

3.  "  The  manner  (pouring  out)  of  the  communication  is  to  be 
disregarded."  If  Professor  Ripley  means,  that  we  ai'e  to  disre- 
gard this  language  as  proof  that  there  was,  in  fact,  a  pouring  out, 
we  assent.  If  he  means,  that  we  are  to  disregard  this  language 
as  proof  that  to  pour  is  the  meaning  of  Ba.nri'^u)^  we  assent.  If 
he  means,  that  we  are  to  disregard  this  language  as  proof  that 
pouring  upon  is  a  just  means  and  of  divine  authority  for  effecting 
a  true  baptism  without  covering,  then  we  say,  this  is  "  kicking 
against  the  pricks."  And,  as  words  cannot  make  the  case  plainer, 
we  must  patiently  wait  until  the  deep  shadow  of  the  theory  shall 
have  passed  away  and  the  mental  eclipse  which  it  has  occasioned 
shall  have  terminated.  Then  it  will  be  found  that  pouring  upon 
does  baptize. 

4.  "  iVo  argument  against  immersion  as  the  only  mode."  That 
is  to  say  :  a  baptism  declared  to  be  effected  by  "  pouring  out,"  is 
of  no  consequence!  And  a  baptism  in  which  there  is,  confes- 
sedly, '"no  immersion  nor  anything  like  it,"  does  not  disprove 
"  immersion  is  the  only  mode  "  (!)  These  are  just  the  persons 
to  "  send  the  Angel  Gabriel  to  school." 

The  Baptizer. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  the  executive  Agent  in  this 
baptism  is  the  Holy  Spirit.  How  does  this  settled  point  bear  on 
the  unsettled  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  other  baptisms  ?  We 
say,  that  there  is  essentially  but  "one  baptism"  pertaining  to 
Christianity  (which  is  stated  with  verbal  differences  but  exhibits 


126  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

one  truth),  and  that  the  uniform  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
this  baptism  is  that  of  executive  Agent.  In  support  of  this  posi- 
tion it  may  be  said:  1.  That  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  would  occupy  two  relations  to  baptism  so  alien 
from  each  other  as  that  of  executive  Agent  and  a  receiving  me- 
dium. 2.  The  quiescence  of  a  receiving  medium  is  inconsistent 
with  the  ceaseless  activity  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  office 
of  redemption.  3.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  "  one  baptism  "  of 
Christianity  that  there  should  be  a  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  a  baptism  "into  Christ."  4.  It  is  inconsistent  with  a  two- 
fold relation  to  baptism  that  the  same  phraseology  which  is  ad- 
mitted to  teach  executive  Agency,  should  be  used  to  describe  the 
relation  in  those  cases  where  agency  is  denied  and  receptive 
medium  is  affirmed.  5.  The  interpretation  of  iv  Iheotxari^  h  Ilveu- 
fj.aTt  'Ayiw^  as  expressive  of  agency,  harmonizes  with  other  facts 
and  teaching  of  Scripture.  It  is  in  harmony  with  the  declaration 
of  John  that  Christ  should  be  the  Baptizer.  He  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  not  announced  as  two  independent  Baptizers,  but  as 
most  intimately  united.  John  proclaims  the  coming  One  as 
"o  iSaTzriZojv  Iv  fheu,aart  ' Ayioj  the  Baptizer  (who  is)  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  and,  therefore,  baptizes  under  the  influence  of  =^=  %  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  facts  at  Pentecost  are  harmonious  with  this 
view.  That  baptism  is  ascribed  both  to  Christ  and  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  is  a  divine  interpretation  of  6  fianrc^ujv  iv  Trvsh/mrt  'Ayiw. 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Agent  in  that  baptism,  proceeding  from 
Christ,  and  is  the  farthest  possible  removed  from  a  quiescent 
receptive  medium.  This  relation  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
developed  in  baptism,  is  in  harmony  with  all  other  Scripture 
repx'csentations  of  this  relation.  The  Baptist  Version  (Luke  4:1) 
says:  "Jesus  being  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit  .  .  .  was  led  Qv  raj 
llvsuixart)  in  tlie  Spirit;"  v.  14,  "Jesus  returned  (hv  rrj  duvd;i£c  too 
TIvEviiaroq)  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit ;"  10:21,"  He  rejoiced  (iv  ziij 
rivenrmri  rw  'Aytw,  Cod.  Sin.,  Tisch.)  ill  the  Holy  Spirit."  "  Jesus 
exulted  in  the  Holy  Spirit"  (Sijriac,  Murdock).  If  in  tlie  phrase 
rjYaXXidfTaro  iv  no  Ihen/mzc  rw  ' Ayio)  the  dale  and  influence  under 
which  he  tliat  rejoices  is  indicated  by  Iv  rw  llvzuimzt  -w  ' Ayioj^  why 
in  the  plirase  [iaTzriazi  iv  llvzonari.  ^Ayiio  docs  not  the  state  and  in- 
fluence under  which  he  who  baptizes,  find  indication  in  iv  llvsO/xart 
'Ayiu)  ?  David  (Bapt.  Version,  Mark  1 2  :  3(5)  speaks,  being  "  in  the 
Holy  Spirit."  Wliy  does  not  David's  Lord  liaptize,  being  "  in  the 
Holy  Spirit?"     Simeon   (Bapt.  Version,  Luke  2:27),  "came  iv 


THE    SUBJECTS    OF    THIS    BAPTISM.  127 

Uveo/mTt,  by  the  Spirit  into  the  temple;"  Jesus  (Luke  4  :  1),  ^k 
IJveufjLaTi,  in  the  Spirit  "  was  led  into  the  wilderness."  The  state 
of  both  was  the  same.  6.  This  interpretation  is  in  harmony  with 
the  classical  use  of  the  Dative  to  designate  the  agenc^y  in  baptism. 
It  also  shuns  the  discordant  application  of  iv  in  baptism,  now  to 
indicate  the  agency  and  now  to  indicate  the  receptive  element. 
Being  limited  to  express  the  agency,  it  leaves  ££■?,  as  exclusively, 
to  fulfil  its  admitted  function  to  point  out  the  medium,  real  or 
ideal,  which  gives  specific  character  to  the  baptism. 

The  Subjects  of  this  Baptism. 

The  "  all"  who  receive  this  baptism  are  not  limited  to  member- 
ship in  the  church  of  Corinth.  Paul  was  not  a  member  of  the 
church  of  Corinth,  j'et  he  claims  a  place  ("toe  all  ")  among  those 
"  baptized  into  one  body."  The  "  Jew  and  the  Gentile,  the  bond 
and  the  free,"  partake  of  this  baptism  not  because  they  are  mem- 
bers of  the  church  at  Corinth,  but  because  they  "  drink  of  the 
same  spirit "  with  them.  The  Galatians  were  partakers  of  this 
same  baptism  (3  :  27,  28)  not  surely  because  they  were  members 
of  the  church  of  Corinth,  nor  yet  because  they  were  members  of 
the  church  of  Galatia,  but  because  they  were  members  of  the 
"one  body"  by  baptism  into  Christ,  "in  whom  (v.  28)  there  is 
neither  Jew  nor  Greek  ;  in  whom  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free; 
in  whom  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  ;  for  ye  are  all  one  in 
Christ  Jesus."  That  this  "  all "  embraces  every  believer  in  Christ, 
of  every  place  and  in  every  age,  is  farther  proved  by  the  prayer 
of  "the  Head  of  the  Church,  which  is  his  body"  (John  17  :  21). 
"  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  be- 
lieve on  me  through  their  word ;  that  they  all  may  be  one  ;  as  thou 
Father  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us  ; 
that  THE  WORLD  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me."  They  who 
believe  that  the  unity  prayed  for  by  Christ  is  the  unity  eff"ected  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  will  also  believe  that  the  "all"  includes  every 
believer  in  Christ  among  all  the  generations  of  men  throughout 
all  the  ages  of  time.  And  if  this  be  true,  then  the  prophecy  of 
Joel  (2  :  28)  of  the  "pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  in  the  last  days, 
upon  all  flesh"  did  not  contemplate  an  occasional,  rare,  and  tran- 
sitory transaction,  nor  did  the  prophecy  of  John  (Matt.  3:11), 
"He  shall  baptize  by  the  Holy  Ghost  "  (a  great  truth  taught  by 
inspiration  and  (John  1  :  33)  confirmed  by  miraculous  sign),  ex- 
haust itself  at  Pentecost  or  at  Caesarea,  nor  did  the  gifts  which 


128  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

the  Redeemer  (Ephes.  4  :  8)  ascended  on  high  to  give  unto  men, 
fail  because  of  profusion  bestowed  upon  the  Corinthians,  but  until 
"the  last  days  "  shall  come  to  an  end,  and  "  all  flesh  "  shall  cease 
to  need  to  be  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  Church  shall 
no  longer  require  gifts  from  on  high,  Jesus  Christ  will  continue 
to  bear  the  title  6  Baixri'^wv  iv  Uveu/iarc  'Ayiu)^  and  its  illustration 
will  be  found  in  the  never-ceasing  office  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
executive  of  this  baptism. 

The  Nature  of  this  Baptism. 

1,  The  nature  of  this  baptism,  in  general,  is  spiritual:  (1.)  Be- 
cause the  Agent  in  the  baptism  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  neither 
effects  physical  baptisms,  nor  uses  symbol  baptisms,  which  are 
but  the  shadow  of  real,  spiritual  baptisms.  (2.)  Because  the 
verbal  receptive  medium  (et?  ^v  awiia)  is  a  spiritual  body,  the  body 
of  Christ,  the  invisible  church,  the  members  of  which  are  "in 
Christ  "  by  faith,  which  is  the  gift  of  God.  (3  )  Because  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  a  physical  baptism  in  the  New  Testament. 
There  is  such  a  baptism  (in  word)  accordiug  to  the  theory ;  but 
in  practice  {desmat  in  ^nscem)  it  ends  in  a  dipping.  2.  More 
particularly,  this  baptism  of  "  all "  is  a  baptism  ulterior  to  that 
of  the  individual.  It  is  a  unifying  of  the  diverse  members  of  the 
body  by  "diversities  of  gifts"  so  tliat  "all,"  members  one  of 
another,  shall  make  "  one  body."  In  some  respects  the  baptism 
etc  ^v  ffw//«,  and  the  baptism  (Galat.  3:  27,  8)  ei?  XpiaTov,  are  the 
same  or  equivalent  baptisms ;  but  not  in  every  respect.  The 
baptism  "into  Christ"  confronts  the  sinner  as  he  "arises  to  go 
to  his  Fathei'."  He  can  only  go  through  that  baptism  which 
"cleanses  from  all  sin,"  as  received  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
baptism  "  into  one  body  "  does  not  so  immediately  express  the 
baptism  of  the  sinner,  as  a  baptism  by  "  diversity  of  gifts  "  for 
"the  perfecting  of  the  saints;"  as  in  Eph.  4:8....  "When  he 
ascended  on  high  and  gave  gifts  unto  men.  ...  He  gave  some, 
apostles;  and  some,  prophets;  and  some,  evangelists;  and  some, 
pastors  and  teachers ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the 
work  of  the  ministry;  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ. 
Till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith  .  .  .  unto  a  perfect  man 
.  .  .  ma}'  grow  up  into  him  in  all  things,  which  is  the  head,  even 
Christ,  from  whom  the  whole  h(\dy  fitly  joined  together  and  com- 
pacted by  that  which  every  joint  supplieth,  i»aketh  increase  of 


THE    NATURE    OF    THIS    BAPTISM.  129 

the  body  unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love."  This  is  a  develop- 
ment of  the  baptism  "  into  one  body."  The  office  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  a  diverse  bearing  on  the  impenitent  sinner  and  upon 
the  regenerate  Christian.  With  the  one  he  "  strives  "  and  "  con- 
vinces of  sin,"  and  when  the  sinner  is  made  "  subject  to  his 
power  "  (truly  penitent)  and  "  imbued  with  his  virtue  "  (sincerely 
believing)  he  is,  yes,  he  is  hereby  (through  repentance  and  faith, 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit)  baptized  "  into  Christ "  == "  into  the 
remission  of  sins."  With  the  Christian  the  office  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  "  to  sanctify,"  "  leading  into  all  truth,"  begetting  "  growth 
in  grace  and  increase  in  knowledge,"  and  thus,  baptizing  (as  a 
perfected  member)  "  into  the  one  body."  This  twofold  work  and 
baptism  of  the  Jloly  Ghost  is  indicated  in  Titus  3:5,6,  "  He  saved 
us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  (^l^/sev  7:?.ouffi(07)  he  poured  out  abundantly  upon 
us  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour."  Here  is  the  baptism  in 
which  we  find  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  indissolubly  united 
and  co-operating  ;  the  sinner  by  "  the  washing  of  regeneration  " 
baptized  into  Christ,  and  the  Christian  "  renewed  "  day  by  day 
(2  Cor.  4  :  16)  and  perfected  by  baptism  "into  one  body." 

The  nature  of  this  baptism,  then,  is  the  unification  of  the  in- 
dividual members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  by  diversity  of  gifts  and 
graces,  supplementary  of  each  other,  so  that  the  whole  shall  form 
one  complete  body  governed  by  one  Head,  moved  by  one  Spirit, 
each  member  satisfied  with  his  own  gifts  (received  under  the  dis- 
tribution made  "  to  every  man  severall}^  as  He  will "),  and  re- 
joicing in  the  complementary  fulness  found  in  the  gifts  conferred 
upon  others.  In  a  word  this  baptism  "  of  all  by  one  Spirit  into 
one  body  "  is  the  answer,  through  the  ages,  to  the  prayer  offered 
up  by  the  Head  of  his  people  on  his  way  to  Calvary — "  Father  1 
I  pray  that  they  all  may  be  one." 


CHRISTIC  BAPTISM:  BAPTISM  COMMANDED  TO  BE 
PREACHED. 

BAPTISM    INTO    THE    REMISSION    OF    SINS    THROUGH 
REPENTANCE   AND    FAITH. 

CHKISTIAN  BAPTISM  PREACHED. 

Acts  2 :  38. 
M.ETavoT]caTe  koX  fiaTTccdf/Tu  eKaarog  vfiuv,  etvI  tu  bvofxari  'Irjaov  XptaToii  eJf 
a<pe(siv  afcapriuv. 

"  Then  said  Peter  unto  them,  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you, 
(believing)  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  into  the  remission  of  sins." 

THE    BAPTISM   OP   CHRISTIANITY   FIRST   PREACHED. 

This  baptism  caunot  be  John's  baptism.  The  mission  of  the 
Forerunner  has  passed  away.  The  Mightier  One  has  come.  His 
title  "Baptizer  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  (so  entitled  because  he  him- 
self is  in  the  Holy  Ghost  invested  with  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  pours  out  the  Holy  Ghost  from  on  high  upon  the  souls 
of  men,  and  not  because  he  puts  others  in  the  Holy  Gliost),  has 
been  vindicated  by  his  thus  baptizing  the  Apostles  and  endowing 
them  with  spiritual  gifts  and  graces  for  their  peculiar  and  most 
responsible  office.  If  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  was  simple  and 
single  in  its  nature,  not  admitting  of  diversity,  then  that  nature 
would  be  determined  and  bounded  by  this  baptism  of  the  Apostles. 
This,  however,  has  been  proved  not  to  be  true,  by  the  diversified 
baptisms  which  have  been  already  considered  and  by  their  uni- 
versal application  to  the  entire  membership  of  the  bod}^  of  Christ. 

The  baptism  under  consideration  has  peculiarities  of  time  and 
relation  that  give  it  an  importance  which  can  hardly  be  overesti- 
mated. It  is  the  first  baptism  pi'eached  under  Christianity.  It 
is  preached  by  one  down  on  whom  the  baptism  from  the  skies  has 
scarcel}"^  ceased  to  be  i)ourcd.  It  is  addressed  to  men  in  or  near 
the  temple  on  Mount  Zion  cut  to  the  heart  by  convictions  of  sin, 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (John  16:9),  and  crying  out, "  What 
(  130  ) 


THE    BAPTISM    OF    CHRISTIANITY    FIRST    PREACHED.      131 

must  we  do?"  In  answer  to  this  cry  a  baptism  is  announced. 
What  was  this  baptism  ?  Was  it  Jewish  baptism,  a  ceremonial 
cleansing  of  the  body  merely  ?  Was  it  John's  baptism,  a  spiritual 
baptism  {(^dnzKriia  fjLsra'MHaq)  in  which  no  Holy  Ghost  was  yet 
"  poured  out,"  no  crucified  Redeemer  was  yet  revealed  ?  Was  it 
Christian  baptism,  the  baptism  of  Christ,  the  Crucified,  the 
Risen,  the  Ascended,  the  Pourer  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  If  it  be 
a  new  baptism,  or  if  it  be  a  fuller  development  of  an  old  baptism, 
now,  here  at  its  first  announcement,  we  are  above  all  other  times 
to  look  for  a  full  and  distinct  statement  of  its  peculiarities.  When 
John  preached  his  divinely  appointed  baptism  (radically  diverse 
in  nature  from  that  baptism  practiced  by  the  Jews),  he  at  once 
announced  that  diversity  in  the  most  distinct  terms.  He  preached 
a  [idnrKTua  /jsravoia:;,  a  jSaTZTCfffj-a  eiq  /lerdvocav^  a  ISd-rcff/xa  fieravotaq  ei<; 
afsfftv  d/j.apTctDv,  language  so  express,  and  so  explicit,  that  no  one 
can  have  a  good  reason  for  failing  to  understand.  It  presented  a 
baptism  in  the  most  direct  and  absolute  antagonism  to  the  preva- 
lent Jewish  baptism,  which  was  a  ceremonial  purification  by  the 
agency  of  water.  Having  preached  this  baptism — soul  repent- 
ance, preparation  to  receive  the  coming  One,  he  announced  (it  is 
nowhere  said  that  he  preached)  his  commission  to  administer  a 
rite  in  which  water  applied  to  the  body  should  symbolize  this 
baptism  received  by  the  soul.  The  Jews  well  understood,  they 
could  not  do  otherwise,  both  this  soul  baptism  and  its  ritual  sym- 
bol. This  is  evident  from  the  statement  of  Josephus  (Jud.  Bapt., 
p.  389),  that  "the  purification  of  the  body  would  only  be  accept- 
able to  God  when  the  soul  had  been  previously  thoroughly  puro-ed 
by  righteousness."  If  John  was  so  careful  to  give  in  his  first 
preaching  (stated  in  briefer  form  afterwards)  a  full  and  explicit 
statement  of  his  baptism,  we  may  reasonably  look  for  the  same 
thing  by  Peter,  when  appointed  by  God  to  make  announcement 
for  the  fii'st  time  of  the  baptism  of  Christianity.  He  has  done  so 
in  fact.  His  language  is  full  and  clear.  They  wha  first  heard  it 
had  not  a  shadow  of  doubt  as  to  its  purport.  We  must  guard 
against  the  misconception  of  words  and  phrases,  and  the  dark- 
ling shadow  from  mistaken  human  usage.  The  importance  of  a 
right  interpretation  of  this  passage  cannot  be  overestimated.  To 
err  here  is  to  err  in  every  after  case  of  Christian  baptism.  We 
cannot,  then,  give  to  it  too  close  attention.  It  will  well  repay  all 
our  labor.     Let  us  then  give  to  it  full  consideration. 


132  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


Translationa  and  various  Views. 

A  translation  which  is  seriously  defective  must  necessarily 
beget  an  interpretation  just  as  defective.  The  translations  of 
this  passage  are  not  uniform.  The  diversit}'  relates  mainly  to 
the  prepositions  1-ki  and  dq.  The  common  English  version  reads 
thus:  "Kepent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins." 

The  Baptist  version  was  made  to  correct  the  errors  of  our 
English  Bible.  In  the  quarto  form  this  passage  is  thus  rendered: 
"Reform  and  be  immersed,every  one  of  you,?7i  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  ybr  the  remission  of  sins."  The  following  is  the  note  on 
'Etu  tm  ovo/mrc:  "This  indicates  authority,  and  in  such  cases  is 
well  represented  by  our  prepositions  in  or  upon — in  the  name,  or 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  be  immersed,  every  one  of  you ;  e/?, 
immediately  following,  intimates  transition  into  a  new  state  or 
relation,  such  as  matrimon}^,  citizenship,  servitude,  or  freedom." 
The  note  given  on  Acts  4:18  contradicts  both  the  value  attached 
to  the  phrase  ^tti  tuj  ov6/j.aTt  and  the  translation  given  of  it.  The 
note  is  as  follows:  "  'Eni.  ruj  oVw/jtarj."  Inasmuch  as  we  have  in  the 
original  Scriptures  three  forms  of  expression  connected  with  ovo/m 
l7j(Tou  Xpt(TT()u,  of  A'^ery  different  import,  it  seems  to  me  not  merely 
expedient,  but  obligator}',  that  we  should  give  to  an  English 
reader  three  corresponding  formulae  in  our  language,  such  as  "t'n 
the  name  of^^''  "  upon  the  name  of^''''  and  "  into  the  name  ofy 
These  three  formulae  are  as  distinct  in  sense  as  in  form.  The 
first  indicates  authority,  viz.,  "  in  the  name  of  the  king  or  com- 
monwealth." Then  It:\  tw  ovdimrt  in  Acts  2:38  does  not  (as  we 
were  told)  "  indicate  authorit}^,"  nor  is  the  translation  "  in  the 
name  "  accordant  with  the  "  sense  "  or  with  the  "  obligation  " 
resting  upon  the  translator.  The  note  on  si--  is  this :  "£('?  acptavj. 
We  enter  into  contracts,  states,  conditions,  into  marriage,  into 
servitude,  into  freedom,  into  Christ,  into  the  church,  into  heaven. 
El'z  and  h  can  never  be  substituted  the  one  for  the  other.  As  any 
one  in  any  state  cannot  enter  into  it,  so  he  that  is  commanded 
to  repent,  or  to  reform,  or  to  be  baptized — zi(;  for^  in  order  to, 
or  into  any  state,  condition,  or  relation — cannot  be  supposed  to 
be  already  in  that  state,  condition,  or  I'elation,  into  which  he  is 
commanded  to  enter.  Hence  those  immersed  b}'  Peter  were  im- 
mersed into  Christ,  into  a  relation,  and  into  privileges  not  secured 
to  them  before.     Ei<;,  immediately  following,  and  indicating  trans- 


TRANSLATIONS    AND    VARIOUS    VIEWS.  133 

ition,  not  rest,  like  iv,  intimates  an  important  cliange,  if  not  in 
character,  at  least  in  the  state  of  the  proper  subject  of  this  Divine 
Law  or  Ordinance  of  admission."  Observe  here  not  only  the 
admission,  but  the  strong  assertion  (as  made  through  all  this 
Inquiry)  that  ^ar.ri'^uj  ei?  makes  demand  for  a  thorough  change  of 
condition  on  the  part  of  the  baptized  person.  This  demanded 
condition  is  travestied  when  converted  into  a  "dipping."  Is  en- 
trance into  marriage,  into  partnership,  into  citizenship,  expressed 
by  dipping  into  marriage,  dipping  into  partnership,  dipping  into 
citizenship?  Does  "dipping"  introduce  any  one  into  a  state? 
But  the  baptism  of  Christianity  makes  imperative  demand  for  a 
state  expressive  of  a  thorough  change  of  condition,  unlimited  in 
duration,  and  which  can  no  more  be  expressed  by  a  dipping  than 
a  command  to  see  can  be  expressed  b}'^  a  direction  to  close  tlie 
eyes.  Observe  also  the  statement  that  si'c  and  iv,  into  and  iyi, 
cannot  be  interchanged  on  this  subject,  and  their  distinctive 
usage  must  be  maintained.  But  that  is  just  what  the  theory  does 
not  do.  The  distinctive  use  and  force  of  these  prepositions,  as 
exhibited  in  Scripture  in  connection  with  baptism,  is  disregarded, 
and  one  is  lawlessly  made  to  take  the  place  of  the  other.  Observe 
farther  that  the  translation  given  of  both  i-l  and  ei(;  is  the  right 
opposite  of  the  principles  laid  down  ;  i-)  rcD  ovotxarc  is  confounded 
with  iv  Tu)  o^Mtimrt^  and  d^  a<pB(rtv  passing  into  a  state  of  remission, 
is  confounded  with  doing  something  '-'■for^^  remission,  and  en- 
trance into  marriage  evaporates  in  preparation  for  marriage.  The 
final  Baptist  revision  modifies  this  translation  thus :  "  Repent, 
and  be  each  of  you  immersed,  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
wnto  remission  of  sins."  "Immersed"  is  interpreted  as  having 
"in  water"  understood,  and  is  introduced  on  the  assumption  that 
Peter  is  preaching  a  ritual  baptism  to  souls  in  anguish  under  the 
convicting  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  assumption  is  sus- 
tained by  adding  interpretatively  {iv  udart)  to  the  words  of  inspi- 
ration, and  thereby  introducing  another  gospel  into  this  divine 
exposition  of  Christianity  and  the  way  of  salvation,  thus  begetting 
the  necessity  for  a  metamorphosis  of  what  the  Holy  Spirit  has 
said,  by  changing  into  the  remission  of  sins  for  '•'■unto  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,"  iu  contradiction  of  acknowledged  principles. 

Professor  Ripley  (in  loc.)  says :  "  To  be  baptized  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  is  to  receive  baptism  in  token  of  faith  in  him,  and 
subjection  to  him."  If  the  statement  was  "Repent  and  bt'  bap- 
tized in  the  Holy  Ghost,^^  would  the  interpretation  then  be  "m 


134  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

token  of  faith  in  him,  and  of  subjection  to  him  ?"  Baptist  trans- 
lations and  interpretations  lack  harmony.  An  interpretation  (if 
it  were  correct)  of  "in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ"  is  not  an  inter- 
pretation of  i-Kt  Tuj  dvoixari. 

For  the  remission  of  sins.     "  Pardon  would  be  bestowed  on 
those  who  should  truly  repent  and  be  baptized  through  regard  to 

his  authority It  should  here  be  carefully  borne  in  mind 

that  the  apostle  did  not  direct  his  hearers  merely  to  be  baptized 
in  order  to  receive  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins ;  but  he  directed 
them  to  repent  and  be  bapiized.  Baptism  without  repentance 
would  be  of  no  avail,  and  sincere  repentance  would  be  "  {of  no  ar.ail 
without  baptism;  we  would  expect  to  follow  from  their  co-ordina- 
tion, but  Prof.  Ripley  does  not  say  so,  but)  "•  would  be  neces- 
sarily, from  its  very  nature,  accompanied  with  a  spirit  of  obedi- 
ence to  Christ.  ...  It  was,  therefore,  to  repentance  and  faith  in 
Jesus,  as  manifested  in  baptism,  that  forgiveness  of  sins,  strictly 
speaking,  was  promised."  Prof.  Ripley  does  not  mean,  I  am  sure, 
to  make  ritual  baptism  the  turning-point  for  the  forgiveness  of 
sins ;  but  what  else  on  its  face  means  "  forgiveness  of  sins, 
strictly  speaking,  is  promised  to  repentance  and  faith  in  Jesus, 
as  manifested  in  baptism  "  in  water?  It  is  impossible  to  intro- 
duce a  ritual  baptism  into  this  exposition  of  the  way  of  salvation 
to  guilty  sinners,  pressing,  around  the  opening  gates  of  Christi- 
anity, without  blotting  the  gospel.  All  attempts  at  an  evangeli- 
cal interpretation  are  but  vain  attempts  to  wash  out  the  stain. 

Professor  Hackett  with  characteristic  accuracy  and  discretion 
translates  and  interprets  thus:  "  Upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  the  foundation  of  the  baptism,  i.  e.,  with  an  acknowledgment 
of  him  in  that  act  as  being  what  his  name  imports,  to  wit,  the 
sinner's  only  hope,  his  Redeemer,  Justifler,  Lord,  final  Judge. 
The  usual  formula  in  relation  to  baptism  is  e;?  to  o'^i/m.  It  ma^^ 
have  lieen  avoided  here  as  a  matter  of  euphony  as  £;?  follows  in 
the  next  clause, — in  order  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  we  connect 
naturally  with  both  the  preceding  verbs.  This  clause  states  the 
motive  or  object  which  should  induce  them  to  repent  and  be  bap- 
tized. It  enforces  tlie  entire  exhortation,  not  one  part  of  it  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  other." 

Notiiing  could  be  said  to  improve  the  translation — "  upon  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,''^  or  to  make  more  just  the  general  inter- 
pretation of  this  phrase.  But  the  remark,  that  "the  usual  formula 
in  baptism  "  is  £i<;  rH  6'M'/;m,  implying  that  int.  rib  ow/mz'.  here  takes 


ALEXANDER    CAMPBELL.  135 

the  place  of  that  formula,  is  a  mistake.  That  formula  is  repre- 
sented in  the  passage  with  its  usual  and  necessary  preposition 
e^C  afzaiM  aixapTiwv.  This  phrase  ^dTZTtapu  fieravoia';  si^  acpstrtv 
d/xapTiwv  expressing  the  baptism  of  John,  Peter  now  connects 
with  the  baptism  of  Christianit3\  Tliis  phraseology  of  Peter  is 
(as  will  be  seen  hereafter)  the  equivalent  for  etq  'Irjaouv  Xpiarbv. 
Nor  does  Professor  Hackett,  with  all  his  eminent  evangelical 
feeling,  find  a  remedy  against  ritual  baptism  when  introduced 
into  the  terms  of  salvation.  Relief  is  sought  by  connecting  "  for- 
giveness of  sins"  with  "both  verbs,"  i.e..  Repent  and  baptize. 
But  the  remedy  does  not  master  the  disease.  Without  rais- 
ing the  question  as  to  a  necessity  (beyond  theological)  for  this 
double  connection,  still  it  remains  true,  that  repentance  and  bap- 
tism in  water  are  made  co-ordinate  terras  of  salvation.  And  no 
one  knows  better  than  Professor  Hackett  whither  such  doctrine  as, 
"It  enforces  the  entire  exhortation,  not  one  part  of  it"  (repent), 
"  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  "  (be  baptized  in  water),  in  order 
TO  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  has  led  and  must  ever  tend  to  lead. 

Alexander  Campbell. 

Alexander  Campbell  (President  of  Bethany  College),  and  his 
large  following  are  an  illustration  of  the  sure,  if  not  logical,  se- 
quence to  the  incorporation  of  a  ritual  baptism  in  the  terms  of 
salvation.  This  man  of  unusual  ability  and  of  wide  influence  ac- 
cepted the  "  unto"  of  the  Baptist  critical  version,  and  the  '•  for  " 
of  the  revised  version,  and  the  ''in  order  to"  of  Professor 
Hackett,  and,  refusing  to  allow  their  force  to  be  annulled  or  di- 
luted by  more  remote  theological  considerations,  declared  his 
faith  in  water  baptism  as  designed  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and 
operating  as  a  condition  in  order  to  their  remission,  on  the  same 
level  with  repentance  and  faith,  and  as  truly  a  cause  of  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  ("  though  not  in  the  same  sense  ")  as  the  atoning  blood 
of  Christ. 

He  declares  that  "  the  design  "  of  baptism  in  water  is  the  trans- 
cendent question  which  out-tops  the  question  "  Who  should  bap- 
tize?" or  "Who  should  be  baptized?"  or  "What  is  the  action 
in  baptism  ?"  He  seeks  by  many  quotations  to  prove  the  force 
of  "  for  ;"  and  declares,  that  any  one  who  shall  say  that  in  con- 
nection with  the  remission  of  sins,  it  has  not  the  same  meaning, 
"  he  is  regardless  of  his  reputation,,  and  as  unsafe  as  unworthy  to  be 


136  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

reasoned  with  on  any  question  of  morality."  "John  and  the 
Apostles  elearl}'  affirm  a  connection  between  baptism  "  (in  water  ?) 
"and  the  remission  of  sins — must  it  not  follow  that  the  only  di- 
vinely instituted  baptism  "  (in  water)  "  is  for  (he  rsTnission  of 
sinsV^ 

Rev.  Isaac  Errett,  who  ably  expounds  (with  evangelical  sym- 
pathies) Alexander  Campbell's  views,  says  :  "  Peter  told  them  what 
to  do  to  he  forgiven:  1.  To  repent;  2.  To  be  baptized.  The 
promise  of  remission  of  sins  was  not  theirs  until  they  repented 
and  were  baptized.  Although  baptism  cannot  procure  forgive- 
ness, as  the  death  of  Christ  procured  it,  it  is  nevertheless  ''for  the 
remission  of  sins.'  .  .  .  How  dare  any  man  keep  back  this  part 
(baptism)  of  the  counsel  of  God,  stopping  with  repentance  and 
faith?"  If  it  were  a  part  of  my  faith  (as  it  is  of  Baptists),  that 
"  immersion  in  water  "  was  incorporated  by  Peter  with  repent- 
ance, and  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  in  order  to,  unto,  for,  ^'' the  re- 
mission of  sins,"  I  should  expect  sucli  faith  to  be  derisively  flung 
in  my  face  whenever  I  did  battle  against  "  Campbellism  " — and 
what  to  answer  I  should  not  know. 

Dr.  Piisey. 

There  is  another  aspect  in  which  this  error,  incorporating  a 
ritual  baptism  with  the  ground  elements  of  salvation,  works  itself 
out.  Dr.  Pusey  (Holy  Baptism,  p.  170),  says:  "  If  men  would 
observe  all  the  indications  in  Acts,  they  would  find  a  stress  laid 
upon  Baptism  which  would  surprise  them,  and  thereby  evince 
that  there  was  something  faulty  in  their  previous  notions.... 
Baptism  is  not  urged  upon  converts  as  a  proof  of  sincerity,  or  a 
test  of  faith,  but  for  its  own  benefits,  in  and  for  itself.  Let  any 
one  think  what  would  have  been  his  answer  to  the  multitude 
who  pricked  in  heart  asked  Peter  and  the  rest,  '  Men  and 
brethren,  what  shall  we  do?'  I  doubt  that  their  answer  WDuld 
not  have  l.>een,  '  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  3'ou,  in  the 
Name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins.'  I  cannot  but 
think  that  ver}'  many  of  us  would  liave  omitted  all  mention  of 
Baptism,  and  insisted  prominently  on  some  other  portion  of  the 
Gospel  message.  Such  was  tlie  first  conversion.  ...  It  was  by 
Baptism  that  the  disciples  enlarged  their  Lord's  church.  It  was 
by  Baptism  that  men  were  saved." 

The  views  of  Dr.  Pusey  and  Alexander  Campbell  differ  very  ma- 


THE    TRUE    TRANSLATION.  137 

terially  in  their  specialties ;  but  they  agree,  in  being  rooted  in  a 
common  error  in  supposing  that  a  ritual  baptism  is  here  spoken 
of.  They  differ,  also,  very  materially  as  to  what  enters  into  a 
ritual  baptism  and  the  details  which  follow  its  administration. 
Both,  however,  believe  that  it  lies  imbedded  in  the  fundamentals 
of  our  religion  and  that  its  physical  administration  is  accompa- 
nied with  singular  spiritual  effects. 

And  now,  of  how  much  practical  value  is  it  to  determine 
whether  the  specialty  of  Alexander  Campbell  or  that  of  Dr. 
Pusey  be  the  more  true,  so  long  as  both  systems  have  a  common 
root  ?  The  worth  or  worthlessness  of  a  tree  does  not  depend  on 
its  trunk  or  its  branch,  but  on  its  root.  As  is  the  root  so  will  be 
the  fruit.  If  the  nature  of  the  fruit  be  deadly,  what  matters  its' 
color  or  its  form  ?  If  Peter,  on  this  momentous  occasion,  an- 
nounces repentance  ai>d  faith  as  the  web,  and  ritual  baptism  as 
the  woof  of  Christianity,  then,  both  these  systems  are  legitimate 
issues,  and  they  or  otliers  like  them  will  be,  must  be,  and  ought 
to  be,  the  result.  Then,  the  question  for  us  to  determine  is  not, 
the  comparative  merits  or  demerits  of  these  or  related  systems, 
but  this — Has  Peter  here  announced  a  ritual  baptism  which 
stands  intermediate  between  Repentance  toward  God  on  the  one 
hand  and  Faith  in  'Jesus  Christ  on  the  other  hand  as  a  coequal 
ground  cause  with  them,  or  beyond  them, /or  the  remission  of 
sin  and  the  salvation  of  the  soul  ?  If  a  rite  be  there  at  all,  the 
time,  the  circumstances,  and  the  language,  unite  to  say:  It  can- 
not be  there  in  anj'  other  position  than  as  a  fundamental  element 
in  the  redemption  of  Christianity.  To  this  point,  then,  let  us 
give  attention. 

'  The  True  Translation. 

The  only  translation  which  can  be  vindicated  by  general  usage 
or  by  the  particular  usage  of  the  New  Testament  is  this :  "  Repent 
and  be  baptized — every  one  of  you — (believing)  upon  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ — into  the  remission  of  sins." 

This  translation  is  sustained  by  the  fact  that  every  word  has 
its  normal,  primary  value ;  and  by  the  further  fact  that  the  rela- 
tion in  which  any  questionable  word  stands  makes  special  demand 
for  such  meaning.*  The  translation  of  baptized  by  "immersed" 
is  declined:  1.  Because  it  is,  by  its  friends,  confessed  to  be  in- 
adequate to  follow  the  usage  of  the  Greek  word ;  2.  Because  in 


138  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

physics,  where  its  introduction  would  find  the  best  apology,  the 
mersion  of  the  baptized  object  is  without  limitation  of  time,  and 
as  the  same  word  cannot  be  used  to  express  a  sharp  limitation  of 
time  and  time  without  limit,  it  is  impossible  for  this  Greek  word 
or  any  just  representative  to  express  the  dipping  of  men  and 
women  into  water,  if  there  were  any  such  thing  belonging  to 
Christianity  ;  3.  The  distinctive  usage  of  baptize  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  to  give  thorough  development  to  an  ideal  element  over 
its  object,  for  which  use  ''  immerse  "  has  no  counterpart.  In  par- 
ticular, such  is  the  usage  of  "baptized"  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, and  therefore  immersed  must  be  rejected. 

The  translation  of  i-l  ujjon  has,  in  general,  a  universal  sanction. 
Professor  Harrison  (Greek  Prepositions,  p.  266)  gives  "on,  upon" 
as  the  primary  meaning,  with  six  "  figurative  "  meanings  growing 
out  of  it,  among  which  (with  the  Dative,  as  here)  is  '''-upon  (ground, 
reason)."  There  is  a  special  "reason"  in  New  Testament  use 
with  "Jesus  Christ,"  because  he  is  represented  as  a  "rock"  upon 
which  the  Church  is  built;  also  "upon"  whom  the  troubled  soul 
may  rest,  as  in  Acts  16  :  80,  "What  must  I  do  to  be  saved?  Be- 
lieve {kTz\)  upon  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved." 
Could  anguished  feeling  and  the  cry  bursting  out  from  it,  be 
more  identical  than  that  of  the  Jailor  at  Philippi  and  that  of  the 
three  thousand  at  Jerusalem  ?  Unless  Peter  preached  another 
gospel  from  that  preached  by  Paul,  i-\  in  his  mouth  has  the  same 
value  as  in  the  mouth  of  his  fellow-Apostle.  But  both  preached 
as  their  Lord  commanded,  Luke  24  :  47,  "  Repentance  and  remis- 
sion of  sins  should  be  preached  {Itzi)  upon  his  name  among  all 
nations."  There  is  j-et  another  reason  why  "  upon  "  should  be 
carved  deep,  just  then,  in  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  at  Pentecost  for 
the  first  time  revealed  as  a  crucified  Redeemer,  and  proclaimed 
as  the  Corner-stone,  elect,  precious,  the  sure  Foundation-stone, 
"  upon  "  which  the  guilty  and  the  perishing  of  Jerusalem  and  of 
all  lands  and  of  all  ages  must  build  their  hopes  for  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  and  everlasting  redemption.  No  chisel  has  yet  been  tem- 
pered in  the  fire  adequate  to  erase  from  the  rock  of  God's  truth 
that  divine  lettering — "  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Curist."  This 
and  this  only  is  the  new  element  that  enters  into  Peter's  preach- 
ing. It  had  no  place  in  the  preaching  of  John.  lie  did  preach 
repentance.  He  did  preach  remission  of  sins  through  repentance. 
He  did  announce  Jesus  as  "  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world."     But  that  John,  himself,  had  any  clear 


THE    TRUE    TRANSLATION.  139 

knowledge  of  Calvary  and  its  Cross  there  is  no  evidence.  That 
he  did  not  preach  a  crucified  Redeemer  is  absolntel^^  certain.  Yet 
it  is  just  as  certain  that  the  Repentance  and  the  Remission  of  sins 
preached  b}'  John  rests,  both  for  their  existence  and  their  worth, 
on  the  3'et  unrevealed  Cross.  It  was  for  Peter  to  announce  that 
uncovered  Cross,  and  bid  the  guilty  lay  their  sins  upon  the  Guilt- 
less One.  This  he  does,  not  by  preaching  repentance  merely,  nor 
b}''  announcing  the  remission  of  sins  merely,  but  by  declaring  that 
in  their  exercise  of  repentance  and  in  their  reception  of  remission 
they  must  rest  only  and  wholly  upoyi  Jesus  Christ.  Thus  is  laid 
across  the  threshold  of  the  opening  door  of  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation that  "  foundation  other  than  which  no  man  can  la}'^,  which 
is  Jesus  Christ."  (1  Cor.  3:11.)  To  build  "  upon  "  this  founda- 
tion faith  in  the  foundation  is  essential.  Therefore  believing  is  nec- 
essarily involved  in  i/ii,  and  is  supplied  in  the  translation  given. 

The  translation  of  tk  by  into  needs,  in  itself,  no  vindication ; 
but  as  against  other  meanings  admitted  to  belong  to  this  word,  it 
does.  Professor  Harrison  (p.  210)  says:  "The  proper  significa- 
tion of  et^  is  within^  in^  with  the  idea  of  the  being  within  a  space 
having  boundaries.  The  other  seemingly  derivative  meanings,  as 
for^  etc.,  are  really  due  to  the  Accusative  case  with  which  the 
preposition  is  conjoined,  or  to  the  character  of  the  action  which  it 
qualifies." 

The  only  meaning  which  is  offered  in  opposition  to  "into"  is 
for^  unto,  in  order  to,  derived  from  the  telic  use  of  the  preposi- 
tion. To  what  is  this  telic  use  due  ?  It  must  be  to  "Repent "  or 
"  Baptized  "  considered  independently  or  jointly.  "  Repent "  might 
(theologicall}')  have  "/or  (sk)  the  remission  of  sins,"  as  its  ex- 
pressed subordinate  end;  "but  I  know  of  no  such  grammatical  con- 
struction as  /isravdijiTaTS  eig  SifetTCv  dfj.aprcwv,  nor  of  any  such  bald 
appeal  as  "  Repent  yb?'  the  remission  of  sins."  The  Scripture  does 
not  place  repentance  in  immediate  relation  with  remission,  but 
with  difficulties  to  be  taken  up  out  of  the  way,  upon  which  being 
done,  remission  of  sins,  from  Christ,  fiows  in  upon  the  soul.  John 
preached  "  Repent !  "  to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord,  the  Lamb 
of  God  that  taketh  away  sin.  But  it  is  impossible  for  e'c:  to  reach 
over  "  baptized  "  and  receiv^e  a  telic  character  from  "  Repent " 
exclusively.  It  is'as  impossible  to  ground  such  idea  in  "  baptized  " 
exclusively.  There  is  no  basis  for  it  either  in  the  language  or  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture.  No  such  statement  as  "  immersed  in  water 
for  the  remission  of  sins  "  can  be  found  ;  and  no  such  appendage 


140  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

can  be  attached  to  the  word  "  baptized  "  without  assuming  the  right 
to  "add  to  the  words  "  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth.  John  says, 
"  I  baptize  h  udan  ei'c  iisroyocav^^^  but  no  one  ventures  to  say  that 
this  is  for  securing  "  repentance  ; "  the  hesitancy  to  do  so  is  not, 
however,  for  any  grammatical  or  theological  reasons,  but  because 
the  exposure  of  the  error  by  continued  impenitence  after  "dipping 
in  water"  is  too  patent.  If  the  issue  of  remitted  sin  by  ritual 
water  were  as  open  to  inspection  as  penitence  or  impenitence  is, 
we  would  hear  as  little  of  ef?  a^sffiv  aimpnibv  being  ''^  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  "  as  of  Itq  iizToymav  being  "  /or  repentance."  When- 
ever facts  can  be  adduced  in  proof  that  dipping  in  water  issues 
in  effecting  "godly  sorrow  for  sin,"  then  we  will  cease  to  object 
to  "the  i-emission  of  sins  "  being  made  telic  of  baptized  in  water. 
This  prej^osition  cannot  receive  a  telic  character  from  the  two 
verbs  conjointly.  The  conjunction  of  "  Repent  "  and  "  dipped  in 
water  "  to  a  common  end,  viz.,  elq  aipzaiv  aimp-my^^  puts  both  on  the 
same  level  and  precludes  a  discrimination  as  to  essential  efficiency 
"  for  "  that  end.  But  it  has  been  shown  that  "  dipping  in  water  " 
has  no  Scriptural  recognition  as  having  oxiy  causative  power  " for" 
the  remission  of  sin  ;  it  cannot,  then,  be  lawfully  conjoined  with 
Repentance  "  for  "  such  a  result,  nor  if  unlawfully  conjoined  can 
it  receive  any  power  to  aid  in  such  result.  Finally,  this  preposi- 
tion cannot  have  the  character  attributed  to  it,  because  it  has 
grammatical  relations  which  require  its  service  in  its  primar}- 
meaning  and  thus  excludes  every  other.  The  indication  of  this 
position  will  require  us  to  enter  upon  the  general  interpretation 
of  the  passage. 

The  Interpretation. 

Repent.  Repentance  occupies  a  well-defined  position,  and  has 
a  determined  value  in  the  Christian  system. 

1.  Repentance  is  the  gift  of  God:  2.  Tim.  2  :  25,  "  If  God  per- 
ad venture  will  give  them  repentance ; ^^  Acts  5:31,  "Him  hath 
God  exalted  with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  to 
give  repentance  to  Israel  and  remission  of  sins." 

2.  Repentance  is  essential  to  salvation:  Luke  13:5,  "  Except  ye 
repent  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish;"  2  Cor.  Y  :  10,  "  Godl^^  sorrow 
worketh  7-epentance  to  salvation." 

3.  Repentance  is  the  proximate  cause  of  the  remission  of  sins : 
Luke  24:47,  "It  was  necessary  that   Christ  suffer,  and  that  re- 


THE    INTERPRETATION.  14X 

pentance  and  remission  of  sins  be  preached  upon  (i-})  his  name;" 
Acts  5:31,  "  Jesus,  whom  3'e  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree,  him  hath 
God  exalted  .  .  .  to  give  rej^entance  and  Ihe  remission  of  sins  ;^^ 
Acts  3:  19,  ^^  Repent  therefore  and  turn,  that  your  sins  may  be 
blotted  out.^^ 

4.  Repentance  is  itself  a  baptism :  Matt.  3:11,  "I  baptize  j^ou  " 
(syraboUy)  "with  water"  {el<;  fj-erdvotav)  "into  repentance."  This 
implies  that  John  had  preached  a  baptism  into  repentance  to  be 
received  in  reality  by  the  soul.  It  is  also  involved  in  what  he 
says  immediately  after,  "  But  he  shall  baptize  you  by  the  Hol}^ 
Ghost"  (into  repentance).  Inasmuch  as  Repentance  is  a  thorough 
change  in  the  condition  of  the  soul  exercising  a  controlling  in- 
fluence over  the  life,  it  cannot  but  be  a  baptism  of  the  soul.  And 
a  ISdT:Ti(T/j.a  £i<;  /leTdvotav  is  the  obvious  expression  for  the  preaching 
of  John. 

5.  Repentance  also  effects  a  baptism:  John  (Luke  1:77)  was 
commissioned  "  to  give  knowledge  of  salvation  to  the  people  of 
the  Lord  by  the  remission  of  their  sins."  This  knowledge  he 
gave  by  preaching  a  baptism  "into  repentance"  (e;'? //srawjav),  a 
"baptism  of  repentance"  {[idnr^aiia  /isravocaq),  and  a  "baptism 
of  repentance  into  the  remission  of  sins"  (i3d:zn(Tfj.a  ij.zTavuiaq  elq 
atpsffiv  dfj-aprtcuv).  These  statements  form  as  plain  a  statement  as 
can  be  put  into  words,  that  repentance  (which  is  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost)  is  causative  of  a  "  baptism  into  the  remission  of 
sins,"  And  this  is  only  another  form  of  stating  the  relation 
between  repentance  and  the  remission  of  sins  to  be  found  every- 
where in  the  Scriptures,  as  in  passages  above  quoted:  ^'■Repent 
and  turn,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out" — "  That  repentance 
and  remission  of  sins  "  (as  its  consequence)  "  be  preached  " — 
"Exalted  to  give  repentance  and  the  ^'emission  of  sins,"  in  the 
relation  (subordinate)  of  cause  and  effect. 

Baptized.  "  Repent  and  be  baptized : "  In  the  last  statement 
we  see  the  reason  for  the  conjunction  of  these  two  terms  as  well 
as  the  nature  and  purport  of  their  relation.  Repentance  and  the 
remission  of  sins  are,  in  the  gracious  system  of  the  Gospel,  in- 
dissolubly  connected.  Repentance  cannot  exist  for  a  moment 
without  the  remission  of  sins  any  more  than  the  lightning  flash 
without  the  thunder  peal.  To  be  repentant  is  "  to  be  baptized 
into  the  remission  of  sins."  The  Holy  Ghost  who  gives  repent- 
ance does,  therewith,  confer  baptism,  sig  a^smv  d/xap-cw'^.  There- 
fore Peter  preaches,  "  Repent  and  (as  its  inseparable  accompani- 


142  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

ment)  be  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins.^^  There  is  no 
ellipsis  to  be  supplied  to  make  out  the  import  of  "  baptized." 
The  occasion  is  too  momentous  for  enigmatic  speech.  The  way 
of  salvation  for  souls  "  cut  to  the  heart"  cannot  be  left  for  human 
supplement.  Therefore  the  sine  qua  non  condition,  "Repent!" 
is  made  to  ring  upon  the  ear;  therefore,  its  inseparable  and  cheer- 
ing accompaniment,  "and"  (thereby)  "be  baptized  into  the  re- 
mission of  sins"  is  fully  stated.  There  is  no  place  for  the  telic 
use  of  e^?.  Its  service  is  demanded  in  its  primary  signification. 
And  its  power  is  exhausted  in  bearing  the  penitent  sinner  out 
of  a  state  of  guilt  i7ito  a  new  state  of  remission.  The  phraseology, 
"Repent  and  be  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins"  is,  in 
sentiment,  nothing  else  than.  Repent  and  he  forgiven ;  but  the 
sentiment  is  intensified  by  the  form  of  expression,  which  teaches 
us,  that  as  an  object  put  into  a  fluid  having  some  marked  charac- 
teristic and  remaining  there  is  penetrated,  pervaded,  and  imbued 
through  ever}'  pore  with  such  characteristic,  thoroughly  changing 
its  former  condition,  so,  a  guilty  soul  is  by  repentance  brought 
into  a  new  state  or  condition,  the  characteristic  of  which  ("the 
remission  of  sins  ")  penetrates  and  pervades  the  soul  in  every 
part,  subjecting  it  to  its  sweet  influence. 

That  the  construction  "Repent  and  be  baptized"  does  not  in- 
dicate two  things  independent  of  each  other  (as  repent  and  he 
immersed  in  water),  but  have  the  gracious  relation  of  cause  and 
eflect,  is  shown  by  the  parallel  construction  in  Acts  3: 19,  "Re- 
pent and  be  converted  (turn),  that  3'our  sins  may  be  blotted  out 
(to  the  blotting  out  of  your  sins)."  No  one  will  say,  that  "  Re- 
pent" and  "be  converted"  (turn)  represent  two  independent 
acts,  or  will  deny,  that-  the  latter  is  embraced  in  and  proceeds 
from  the  former,  as  an  effect  is  embraced  in  and  proceeds  from 
its  cause.  No  man  ever  repented  of  sin  with  godlj'  sorrow  with- 
out turning  from  it;  and  no  man  ever  turned  from  sin  as  required 
by  Scripture,  without  being  penitent,  and  being  moved  thereunto 
b}'  repentance.  These  two  passages  serve  not  merely  to  illustrate 
this  construction,  but,  no  less,  the  baptism.  The  statement, 
"  Repent  and  be  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  is  reflected 
both  in  sentiment  and  in  power  (with  dilference  of  form)  by  that 
other  statement  (both  made  by  the  same  speaker),  "  Repent  to 
the  blotting  out  of  3'our  sins"  {elq  ru  i^aXsi^Ov^vut)  "obliterated 
from  the  book  or  tablet  where  they  are  recorded"  (Hackett). 
This  figure  of  "blotting  out"  has  a  power  of  expression  not  less 


THE    INTERPRETATION.  143 

(of  its  kind)  than  "baptizing  into,"  and  both  are  used  for  the 
same  purpose,  namely,  to  express  in  the  strongest  manner  that 
language  will  allow,  absolute  forgiveness  to  the  repenting  sinner. 
If  one  seeking  admission  into  the  church  should  be  required  to 
make  out  a  list  of  his  sins,  and  then  the  admission  should  be 
consummated  by  "blotting  them  out"  b3'  turning  the  ink-bottle 
over  them,  and  no  one  be  allowed  to  come  to  the  communion 
table  without  this,  the  error  would  not  be  so  great,  nor  the  per- 
version of  the  figure  so  absolute,  as  in  receiving  a  man  into  the 
church  by  dipping  him  into  water,  and  excluding  others  because 
such  blotting  out  would  be  conformable  to  the  letter  of  the 
figure,  while  the  conversion  of  a  "baptism"  into  a  dipping  is  an 
utter  abandonment  of  the  letter  and  of  the  spirit. 

The  telic  use  of  dq  in  the  phrases  ^(xnzi^etv  dq  ttjv  0dXa(7<jav^  etg 
a^eertv  d,'iapTC(Ji)v,  is  unnatural,  if  not  impossible,  by  reason  of  the 
essential  nature  both  of  the  verb  and  the  preposition.  It  is  con- 
tradictory to  universal  Classic  usage.  It  is  as  incongruous  as  to 
say,  the  ship  entered  unto,  in  order  to,  for  the  sea ;  or,  the  tiger 
penetrated  unto,  in  order  to,  for  the  jungle.  To  enter,  to  pen- 
etrate, requires  something  into  which  entrance  or  penetration 
shall  be  effected.  In  the  phrase,  "  The  horse  entered  for  the 
cup,"  there  is  an  ellipsis,  into  the  race,  for  the  cup.  In  the  phrase. 
Be  baptized  el<;  cicpsatv  there  can  be  no  rational  ellipsis,  because 
"  baptized  into  remission  "  meets  the  demand  naturally  and  ex- 
haustively both  of  verb  and  preposition ;  it  gives  a  true  meaning 
harmonious  with  all  the  teaching  of  Scripture.  If,  however,  an 
ellipsis  should  be  insisted  upon,  it  must  be  such  as  expresses  that 
into  ivhich  the  object  of  the  verb  passes.  No  ellipsis  will  meet 
the  case  in  which  in  appears  as  a  substitute  for  "  into."  "  He 
entered  the  house  "  has  not  the  force  of  the  vei'b  expressed  by 
"  He  entered  in  the  house."  That  form  says  nothing  of  the  power 
of  the  verb  ;  it  only  declares  position  after  the  action  of  the  verb 
has  terminated  ;  it  leaves  into  still  to  be  supplied — "  He  entered 
into,  and  so  was  in  the  house."  The  ellipsis,  therefore,  cannot 
here  be  t^  udarc — "  Be  baptized  (in  water)  for  the  i-emission  of 
sins  " — because  the  force  of  the  verb,  as  applied  to  an  object  in 
one  condition,  and  to  be  brought  out  of  such  condition  into  a 
diverse  condition,  has  no  expression  in  iv,  which  is  expressive 
simply  of  rest.  Such  phrase  can  only  mean,  an  object  being  "  in 
water"  was  baptized  into  something  else,  or  an  object  having  been 
baptized  into  something  else  is  left  "  m  water."    It  is  a  philological 


144  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

impossibility  for  ftanziXa}  iv  uSart  to  express  the  power  of  tbe  verb 
as  demanding  the  transference  of  its  object  out  of  one  state  into 
another  state.  But  the  alpha  and  the  omega  of  the  demand  of 
Scripture  baptism  is,  that  the  sinner  shall  pass  out  op  a  stale  of 
impenitence  into  a  state  of  penitence^  out  of  a  condition  of  guilt 
into  a  condition  of  remission.  To  express  this  thought  fia--i!tco  is 
used,  and  in  its  use  the  nature  of  the  verb  is  carefully  met  by  e^?, 
and  the  nature  of  the  resultant  condition  is  explicitly  stated  by 
the  regimen  of  the  preposition — /3«7rr£'^w  h  udari  eii;  ixezavoiav. 
We  are  thus  guarded  by  divine  wisdom  (both  by  philology  and 
grammatical  law)  against  the  error  which  should  attribute  to  h 
o8aTi  the  office  of  expressing  the  demand  of  the  verb  to  the  dis- 
placement of  ££?  iJ.sTavnia'^.  To  guard  against  a  farther  error,  which 
would  give  to  h  odan  a  power  (where  assigned  to  its  own  sphere 
of  symbol  agenc}')  which  did  not  belong  to  it,  John  is  taught  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  say,  instructively  and  warningly,  "/  baptize 
into  repentance,  h  odazt-^  this  is  all  that  I  can  do,  but  there  cometh 
one  after  me  mightier  than  I,  he  shall  baptize  into  repentance,  Iv 
Uyvjiiari  'Aytuj.'^  In  view  of  such  express  statement,  and  such  ex- 
plicit instruction,  might  not  the  Author  of  inspiration  well  ask, 
"What  more  could  I  have  done  for  the  true  interpretation  of  this 
passage  than  that  I  have  done?" 

To  supply  by  ellipsis  Iv  Ilvso/xart  "Ay.w  as  expressing  the  gram- 
matical demand  of  the  verb,  is  as  objectionable  as  is  h  vdazi',  but, 
so  far  as  agencj"^  (adequate  to  fulfil  the  demand  of  the  verb  carry- 
ing its  object  £('?  acpetTiv  aimprmv)  is  concerned,  it  is  not  only  un- 
objectionable, but  must  be  supplied,  except  as  it  may  be  regarded 
as  already  comprehended  in  repentance,  which  is  "  the  gift  of 
God  "  and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  therefore  properly  made 
representative  of  the  power  which  bears  the  soul  out  of  its  guilt 
into  the  remission  of  its  sins. 

The  telic  use  of  ek  with  fia-riXu)  may,  very  confidentl}',  be  de- 
clared to  have  no  existence,  whether  in  the  Scriptures  or  out  of 
the  Scriptures.  The  full  form  (expressed  or  understood)  is  that 
given  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (II,  1212):  " '£x  Guxppoffuv-qc;  siq 
Tcopvetav  lianri%,)oni^  they  baptize  out  of  chastit}'  into  fornication." 
Who  would  think  of  translating  this  phrase,  "  They  baptize  out 
of  temperance  unto^  for^  in  order  to,  fornication  ?"  Professor 
Wilson,  of  Belfast  (On  Baptism,  page  341)  says:  "The  render- 
ing of  £iV  after  ^aTzrl'^w,  or  any  of  its  derivatives  by  'for,'  as  in 
'I  baptize  dq  iisravoia-^,^  and  'Baptism  of  repentance  ei-.  utpsatv 


THE    INTERPRETATION.  145 

aiJ.apTtwv^''  we  consider  wholly  unauthorized.     The  correct  transla- 
tion is  into.^' 

'Et:).  TO)  SvdiiaTi  '/ijffoD  Xpitrrou.  Upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Alexander  Campbell  (On  Baptism,  p.  154)  says:  "/S-zTrrctw  and 
in)  so  perfectly  disagree  as  never  to  be  found  construed  in  amity 
in  any  Greek  author,  sacred  or  profane."  This  verb  and  prepo- 
sition are  not  unfrequently  conjoined,  although  the  preposition 
does  not  appear  as  an  exponent  of  the  verb.  The  usage  is  in- 
structive as  bearing  on  the  present  passage,  and  therefore  some  ex- 
amples will  be  presented.  Judith  (12:7):  "  ijSaTtri^eTo  im  t^c  ~w^J^ 
baptized  herself  upon  the  fountain."  The  preposition  expresses 
that  upon  which  Judith  rested  when  she  baptized  hei'self.  Every 
"  fountain  "  has  "  a  lip,"  an  edge,  on  which  one  can  stand  and  be 
baptized.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (1, 1352)  says:  "It  is  a  custom 
of  the  Jews  in)  xoirrj  ^anTi%s(TOa(.  to  be  baptized  upon  a  couch." 
The  preposition  points  out  that  upon  which  the  Jew  rested  when 
he  received  baptism ;  he  rested  upon  a  couch.  Matt.  3:13.  "Jesus 
comes  from  Galilee  in)  rov  "fopddvrjv  (SanrtirOr^vat.^^  He  comes  from 
Galilee  toward  the  Jordan,  and  when  he  reached  it  he  rests  upon 
it  (every  river,  like  every  fountain,  has  "  a  lip,"  an  edge,  a  bank, 
upon  which  one  can  stand)  to  be  baptized.  These  examples  pre- 
sent a  physical  basis  on  which  the  baptized  rested.  The  case 
under  consideration  exhibits  the  moral  basis  upon  which  the  soul 
must  rest  in  receiving  the  baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins. 
The  Jew  ma}'  rest  upon  the  edge  of  a  fountain,  or  upon  the  edge 
of  a  couch,  in  being  baptized  out  of  ceremonial  impurit}'  into  cere- 
monial purity;  but  the  soul  to  be  baptized  out  of  guilt  into  the 
remission  of  sins  must  rest,  not  upon  repentance  (as  an^^  meri- 
torious or  ultimate  ground),  but  must  rest  upon  that  Name,  "  which 
is  the  only  name  given  under  heaven  whereby  we  must  be  saved," 
Jesus  Christ.  It  was  faith  in  the  fountain's  edge  as  able,  physi- 
cally, to  sustain  her,  that  led  Judith  to  rest  confidently  upon  it; 
for  like  reason  the  Jevv  rested  confidently  upon  his  couch  as  able, 
physically,  to  sustain  him ;  and  the  soul  believing  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  able,  morally,  to  sustain  all  who  rest  upon  him,  does 
confidently  accept  the  preaching  of  Peter,  declaring  that  every 
penitent  sinner,  resting  upon  Jesus  Christ,  as  an  atoning  Re- 
deemer, shall  thereby  be  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins. 

This  is  the  one  exclusive  doctrine  of  Christianity.  It  is  the 
sole  doctrine  of  salvation,  more  or  less  fully  unfolded  from  the 
first  page  to  the  last  page  of  the  Bible.     It  is  the  clear  and  only 

10 


146  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

doctrine  of  Peter  under  the  severest  interpretation.  And  any 
other  doctrine,  directing  the  sinner  "  cut  to  tlie  heart "  to  look 
for  a  "  baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins  "  from  any  other  source 
save  repentance  toward  God  and  faith  upon  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
is  "  another  "  Gospel. 

Alexander  Campbell  and  Dr.  Pusey  are  alike  mistaken  when 
the}'^  suppose  that  the  evangelical  preacher  would  rather  turn  "to 
some  other  teaching  of  Scripture  than  this  "  when  answering  the 
cry,  "What  must  we  do  to  be  saved?"  No  Scripture  is  more 
full  of  condensed  evangelical  truth.  It  illuminates,  as  with  the 
light  of  seven  suns,  the  way  of  salvation.  It  is  the  light  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  which 
shines  through  it  all.  It  is  an  inscription  worthy  to  be  written 
not  in  gold,  but  in  the  more  precious  blood  of  the  Lamb,  upon  the 
posts  and  lintel  of  the  doorway  into  the  new  and  perfect  dispen- 
sation. And  any  preacher  who  cannot  preach  the  faithfully  in- 
terpreted preaching  of  Peter,  but  will  substitute  for  it — be  dipped 
in  water  or  be  ritually  baptized  in  any  form,  may  some  day  under- 
stand that  it  would  have  been  better  for  him  had  his  tongue  cleaved 
to  the  roof  of  his  mouth  than  that  it  should  ever  have  uttered  such 
things. 

Baptist  Quarterly. 

The  following  article  on  this  passage  appeared  as  an  "  Exeget- 
ical  Study,"  in  the  Baptist  Quarterly,  October,  1871  : 

"  UanrKrOYiTU)  ki^  a(ps(nv  dim/niMv.  What  is  the  meaning  and  force 
of  the  preposition  ek  in  connection  with  ^anri'^eiv  ?  Does  the  usus 
loquendi  of  the  New  Testament  justify  or  allow  such  a  rendering 
as  be  baptized /or  or  in  order  to  ?  The  proper  way  to  determine 
this  is  to  marshal  all  the  passages  in  which  the  preposition  si-:  is 
used  in  connection  with  baptize.  They  are  not  very  numerous, 
and  below  will  be  found  an  example  of  every  case  in  the  New 
Testament,  omitting  duplicate  passages  for  the  sake  of  brevity." 
Here  follows  a  quotation,  from  the  common  English  Bible,  of  the 
following  passages— Matt.  3:11,  Matt.  28:  19,  Mark  1  :  9,  Luke 
3:2,  3,  Acts  2:38,  Rom.  6:3,  4,  1  Cor.  10:2,  1  Cor.  12:13, 
Galat.  3 :  27— with  a  remark,  "Our  English  translators"  (and 
Baptist  Bible  also)  "  have  given  us  as  a  rendering  of  one  Greek 
preposition,  four  words,  /or,  in,  into,  unto;  and  so  greatly  ob- 
scured the  Greek  simplicity."  The  same  passages  are  then  re- 
peated, in  tlie  same  form,  with  the  exception  of  the  introduction 


BAPTIST    QUARTERLY.  147 

of  £;V,  untranslated.  He  then  remarks,  "  If  the  correct  rendering 
of  Acts  2  :  38  is  be  baptized  in  order  to  remission,  it  will  be  useful 
to  put  this  translation  in  all  the  passages,  and  see  if  it  will  make 
good  sense."  The  quotations  are  again  repeated  with  the  substi- 
tution of  in  order  to.  The  judgment  pronounced  is  this:  "  It  is 
obvious  that  nonsense  is  made  by  this  translation  in  nearly  every 
passage.  If  in  order  to  be  the  translation  of  Acts  2  :  38  it  is 
plainly  an  exception  to  almost  every  other  passage ;  and  thus  we 
are  presented  with  the  absurd  postulate  that  Peter  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost  used  an  expression  conveying  a  meaning  entirely  dif- 
ferent from  the  common  usus  loquendi  of  the  words  employed ; 
and  this,  too,  when  he  was  laying  down  the  fundamental  demands 
of  Jesus  Christ  for  participation  in  the  blessings  of  the  Reign  of 
Heaven.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  follows  that  in  order  to  is 
not  the  proper  translation  here.  Let  the  reader  put  the  word  for 
in  the  place  of  in  order  to,  and  it  makes  as  much  nonsense  as 
the  other  in  most  of  the  passages  given. 

"  But,  now,  suppose  we  translate  eie;  in  all  these  passages  by 
the  English  preposition  into,  which  is  its  nearest  representative, 
and  see  what  is  the  result.  In  every  case  it  makes  good  sense, 
and  gives  us  the  key  out  of  this  doctrinal  labyrinth.  Peter  said 
to  the  penitent  Jews,  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  '  Repent,  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  into  the 
remission  of  sins.'  In  this  he^ives  an  inspired  model  for  all 
gospel  preachers.  We  all  may  and  must  direct  all  trul}''  penitent 
and  believing  souls  to  be  baptized  INTO  the  pardon  of  sins;  but 
notybr  or  in  order  to  pardon. 

"  And  now,  having  a  word  which  gives  us  the  meaning  of  the 
original  Greek,  let  us  ascertain  its  doctrinal  value.  What  is  the 
doctrinal  value  of  being  baptized  into  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ? 
It  is  clear  that  it  does  not  mean  that  these  people  were  to  receive 
pardon  by  being  baptized.  Look,  now,  at  all  the  passages  again, 
and  see  whether  in  any  case  the  noun  which  follows  the  pre[)0si- 
tion  ££?  refers  to  anything  the  subjects  of  baptism  were  to  receive. 
John's  converts  did  not  receive  repentance  by  being  baptized 
INTO  it.  When  John  dipped  penitents  into  the  Jordan  it  was  not 
for  the  purpose  of  swallowing  a  portion  of  the  stream.  When  the 
Great  Commission  directs  that  all  believers  shall  be  baptized" 
(=  dipped  ?)  "  into  the  name  of  the  Triune  God,  it  is  not  something 
they  are  to  receive.  When  the  Jews  were  baptized"  (=  dipped  ?) 
"into    Moses,    just    as    when    Christians    are    now    baptized" 


148  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

(=:: dipped  ?)  "into  Christ,  into  liis  deatli,  into  his  bod}-,  in  no 
case  does  it  express  as  the  terminus  ad  quern  some  personal  favor 
which  the  baptized  receive  in  the  act. 

"  So  Acts  2  :  38  does  not  teacli  that  the  believing  Jews  should 
be  baptized  "  (=  dipped?)  "  in  order  to  be  pardoned  of  their  sins. 
Nothing,  indeed,  is  said  of  tlieir  individual  sins.  The}'  were  to 
be  baptized"  (=  dipped?)  "into  the  remission  of  sins;  and  the 
usus  loquendi  demands  that  we  give  no  more  personal  application 
to  the  words  than  in  the  kindred  phrases,  baptism"  (=  dipping?) 
"  INTO  repentance ;  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit;  into  the  Jordan  ;  into  Christ;  into  his  death;  into  his 
body ;  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  Therefore  we 
conclude  that  Christian  baptism"  (=  dipping?)  "is  into  Christ, 
into  his  death,  into  his  body,  into  forgiveness ;  but  it  is  not  in 
ORDER  THAT  the  baptized  may  receive  an^^  one  of  these. 

"But  this  is  merel}'  negative.  If  our  view  be  correct,  it  is 
wrong  to  regard  this  text  as  teaching  baptism  "  (=  dipping  ?)  "as 
a  condition  of  forgiveness.  Wliat,  then,  is  the  affirmative  idea  in- 
volved in  the  expression,  '  Be  baptized  into  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  ?'  We  answer :  It  is  a  highly  tropical  expression.,  designed  to 
set  forth  the  teaching  of  baptism,  its  doctrinal  relation  to  the  Trinity., 
to  Christ.,  to  his  death.,  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  When  John  the 
Baptist  is  said  historically  to  have  baptized  his  converts  into  the 
Jordan,  literally  dipped  them  into  Jordan,  we  liave  the  bare  and  lit- 
eral fact.  When  he  is  said  to  baptize  "  (:=  dip  ?)  "  into  repentance, 
we  have  a  tropical  use  of  the  very  same  language.  So  when  bap- 
tism "  (=  dipping?)  "is  said  to  be  into  Christ,  into  pardon,  there 
is  tiie  tropical  use  of  language  which  iiterall}'  means  to  dip  into  el 
substance.  To  dip  a  child  into  the  sea  conveys  to  us  a  plain  and 
literal  image;  to  dip  a  penitent  man  into  Christ,  into  his  death, 
into  the  body,  into  the  pardon  of  sins,  is  undoubtedly  highl}'  poetic 
and  figurative  language,  but  its  tropical  use  ought  to  convey  no 
idea  radically  different  from  its  literal.  It  must  never  be  for- 
gotten that  the  radical  idea  of  baptism  is  a  dipping  into.  Hence 
its  relations  to  Christ,  to  his  death,  to  pardon,  to  his  body,  would 
naturally  find  expression  in  such  expressions  as  baptizing" 
(=  dipping?)  "  into  tliese."— T.  J.  M. 

This  "exegetical  study"  is  given  at  length,  because  it  is  desir- 
able to  know  the  views  lield  by  those  represented  by  the  Baptist 
Quarterly  on  this  most  important  passage. 

From  this  "  study"  we  learn  :   1.  The  telic  use  of  et?  with  iSaTZTc^aj, 


BAPTIST    QUARTERLY.  149 

whether  in  this  passage  or  in  any  other  is  rejected  as  "  nonsense." 
Whether  this  is  the  best  term  to  characterize  the  "for"  of  the 
Baptist  Quarto  version,  or  the  "in  order  to"  of  Professor  Hack- 
ett,  in  his  Commentar}',  is  doubtful.  Some  things  are  erroneous 
in  their  nature,  and  pernicious  in  their  tendency,  while  they  are 
not  "nonsensical"  in  their  logic.  Whoever  believes  that  Peter 
preached,  "  Repent  and  be  immersed  in  or  (as  T.  J,  M.  says  it 
should  be)  dijyped  into  water /or  the  remission  of  sins"  believes, 
I  think,  an  error  most  unscriptural  in  its  nature  and  most  per- 
nicious in  its  tendency ;  and  if  the  Baptist  Quarterlj'  can  prove, 
in  addition  to  this,  that  it  is  "  nonsense,"  no  one  need  complain. 

2.  The  "study  "  says,  this  preposition,  with  the  verb,  can  only 
be  truly  translated  by  "  into  "  in  every  passage  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. In  this  conclusion  we  cordiall}^  concur,  as  to  every  case 
in  which  the  preposition  originates  in  the  verb,  and  has  in  regi- 
men the  complement  of  the  verb.  In  this  judgment,  however, 
T.  J.  M.  is  against  the  Baptist  Bible  Translators  generally,  and 
against  Dr.  Conant  in  particular,  as  arguing  against  the  transla- 
tion of  Da~T{!^scv  £iq  by  "  baptized  into  "  in  Matt.  28  :  19. 

3.  "  The  doctrinal  value  of  baptized  into  the  forgiveness  of 
sins:"  (1.)  Negatively:  "It  does  not  mean  that  these  people 
were  to  receive  pardon  by  being  baptized."  Proof:  "  John's  con- 
verts did  not  receive  repentance  by  being  baptized  into  it." 
"  John's  converts  "  were  made  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  every  con- 
vert by  the  Holy  Ghost  was  "  baptized  into  repentance  "  and  did 
so  receive  from  that  Divine  Agent  godly  sorrow  for  sin.  "  When 
John  dipped  penitents  into  the  Jordan,  it  was  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  swallowing  a  portion  of  the  stream."  No,  nor  did  John 
"  dip  penitents  into  the  Jordan  "  on  any  better  authority  than 
that  of  T.  J.  M.  The  phrase  £i<;  'fapda'^rjv  never  occurs  in  connec- 
tion with  the  "  dipping,"  or  the  immersing,  or  the  baptizing  of 
"  penitents."  It  occurs  only  in  connection  with  the  baptism  of 
Christ,  and  then  the  preposition  does  not  originate  in  BaTirc^to  but 
in  the  vei'b  of  motion  which  brings  the  Saviour  from  Galilee.  To 
say,  that  "  baptism  into  repentance,"  "  baptism  into  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,"  "  baptism  into  Christ,"  conveys  nothing  to  the  bap- 
tized, is  not  "  nonsense,"  it  is  absurd-sense  ;  it  is  a  contradiction 
in  terms.  It  is  also  an  express  contradiction  of  Scripture,  which 
declares  that  "  as  many  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put 
on  Christ."  It  makes  Peter's  preaching  a  farce.  Men  charged 
with  "  taking  the  Christ  of  God  and  by  wicked  hands  crucify- 


150  CHKISTIC    BAPTISM. 

ing  and  slaying  hira,"  cut  to  the  heart,  cry  out,  "  What  must  we 
do  "  to  wash  our  hands  and  souls  of  blood.  And  Peter's  answer, 
"  Repent  and  be  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins,''  we  are 
told,  means  nothing !  They  receive  nothing — no,  not  so  much  as 
"  swallowing  a  portion  of  Jordan's  stream."  And  when  Alci- 
biades  threatened  to  baptize  Eupolis  into  the  sea,  did  his  threat 
mean  that  he  was  "  to  receive  nothing,"  no,  not  so  much  as  a 
mouthful  of  salt  water,  by  such  baptism  ?  And  when  Josephus 
sa3-s :  "  Gedaliah  was  baptized  into  insoisibility,"  does  he  mean 
that  he  "received  nothing"  by  such  baptism  ?  And  when  Clem- 
ent speaks  of  men  "baptized  into  fornication,"  does  he  mean 
that  they  "  received  nothing  "  by  such  baptism  ?  And  when  the 
Holy  Ghost  teaches  us  that  the  end  of  the  provision  of  the  gospel 
is,  that  the  guilty  and  the  perishing  may  be  baptized  "  into 
Christ,"  is  it  that  they  may  "  receive  nothing"  by  such  baptism  ? 
And  wheii,  as  the  consummation  of  all,  a  redeemed  world  shall 
have  been  baptized  "  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  will  it  be  that  in  their  emptiness  they 
may  take  up  the  cry,  "  We  have  received  nothing  "  ?  The  theory 
can  no  more  master  the  language  of  Scripture,  than  a  newborn 
babe  can  wield  the  sword  of  Philistia's  Giant.  (2.)  "  But  this  is 
merely  negative.  What,  affirmatively,  does  '  Be  baptized  into  the 
forgiveness  of  sins '  teach  ?  We  answer :  It  is  a  highly  tropical 
expression,  designed  to  set  forth  the  teaching  of  baptism,  its  doc- 
trinal relation  to  the  Trinity,  to  Christ,  to  his  death,  to  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins." 

I  give  the  passage,  as  it  appears,  in  wording,  in  punctuation, 
and  in  underscoring,  and  if  as  an  answer  to  the  self-proposed 
question,  it  be  not  the  purest  "  nonsense  "  (empty  and  void  of 
all  sense)  it  is  at  least  the  truest  illustration  of  "  a  stone  given 
to  the  hungry  for  bread,  and  a  serpent  given  for  a  fish.'' 

4.  But  T.  J.  M.  enters  a  plea,  that  while  there  is  but  an  empty 
void  out  of  which  nothing  is  to  be  received  in  a  dipping  into 
Christ,  and  into  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  through  his  redeeming 
blood,  still,  the  language  has  this  to  commend  it — "  it  is  highly 
poetic  and  figurative  "  (!).  Perhaps  Peter  was  a  poet.  T.  J.  M. 
says,  he  is  "  highly  poetic  "  at  Pentecost.  Perishing  sinners 
crying  out  for  redemption,  are  answered  in  "  poetry  and  figure," 
out  of  which  they  can  "  receive  nothing." 

5.  "  It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the  radical  idea  of  baptism 
is  a  dipping  into."     The  doctrine  in  this  statement  is  no  novelty. 


BAPTIST    QUARTERLY.  151 

It  was  the  faith  of  Roger  Williams  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
ago,  as  shown  by  a  treatise  entitled  "  Dipping  is  Baptizing  and 
Baptizing  is  Dipping,"  then  circulated  by  him.  In  the  year  1645 
"A  Treatise  on  Dipping"  was  issued  by  A.  Barber,  London. 
In  1611  Gale  says:  "Dipping  only  is  Baptism."  And  in  the 
same  year  "  the  venerable  Booth  "  says  :  "  Jehovah  makes  use  of 
a  term  which  properly  signifies  dipping.^''  F.  A.  Cox,  London, 
1824,  says:  "The  idea  oi  dipping  is  in  every  instance.^^  Dr. 
Carson,  Philadelphia  Baptist  Board  of  Publication,  1853,  says: 
"  My  position  is  that  it  always  signifies  lo  dip,  and  nothing  but 
dip,  through  all  Greek  literature."  The  translator  of  the  Baptist 
Version  of  Mark  and  Luke  says  :  "  It  has  been  settled  that  there 
is  no  difference,  as  to  signification,  between  jSoltztco  and  /JaTrrj'Cw." 
The  translator  of  the  Baptist  Version  of  Acts  says :  "  Being 
words  of  action  and  not  of  mode,  they  can  have  but  one  literal 
and  proper  meaning.^''  He  adds,  ^^  fidnTiu  occurs  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament three  times,  always  translated  by  dip.'"  These  statements 
are  identical  with  those  of  T.  J.  M.,  as  to  the  signification  of  the 
word — "the  idea  of  baptism  is  a  dipping  into,"  and  consequently 
this  "  idea "  has  been  broached  by  a  historical  succession  of 
writers  from  Gale,  1611,  to  T.  J.  M.,  1871,  through  a  period  of 
two  hundred  and  sixty  years.  This  "  idea  "  of  dipping  has  not 
been  loosely  and  inconsiderately  introduced,  but  as  "radical  to 
baptism."  It  has  been  specifically  defended  as  "  the  only  literal 
and  proper  meaning,"  on  the  ground  that  the  verb  expressed 
"  action,"  and  therefore  could  not  have  any  second,  literal  mean- 
ing. That  the  distinctive  meaning  of  "  dip  "  and  nothing  else 
was  the  "  idea,"  is  conclusively  established  by  the  fact  that  the 
notion  of  a  resurrection  in  baptism  is  grounded  in  that  feature  of 
dip  which  brings  its  object  out  of  a  fluid  after  a  momentary'  in- 
troduction into  it.  Sink  does  not  bring  its  object  out  of  a  fluid, 
plunge  does  not  bring  its  object  out  of  a  fluid,  overwhelm  does 
not  bring  its  object  out  of  a  fluid,  immerse  does  not  bring  its  ob- 
ject out  of  a  fluid,  but  "  dip  "  does,  and  consequently  neither 
sink,  nor  plunge,  nor  overwhelm,  nor  immerse  can  furnish  a  basis 
for  a  resurrection.  It  follows  therefore,  that  neither  of  these 
words  can  express  the  Greek  verb,  or  there  is  no  resurrection  in 
baptism.  But  there  is  another  historical  aspect  of  this  matter. 
After  "  the  idea  of  baptism  as  a  dipping  "  has  been  insisted  upon 
as  "the  meaning,"  "  the  only  meaning  that  can  be,"  it  is  thence- 
forward treated  as  an  intruder  and  cast  out  of  nearly  every  trans- 


152  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

lation,  while  the  right  opposites  (as  to  characteristic  meaning) 
sink,  plunge,  overwhelm,  immerse,  fill  its  place.  The  evidence  of 
this  is  found  in  the  fact  that  Dr.  Dagg  in  fifty  cases  of  the  usage 
of  the  Greek  verb  never  once  translates  it  fZ?p.  Dr.  Conant  in  a 
hundred  like  cases  translates  it  so  rarelj'  by  dip,  that  the  number 
could  be  counted  on  the  fingers  of  your  hand.  And  in  the  Bap- 
tist Version  of  the  New  Testament,  while  [idmw  is  always  trans- 
lated dip,  (ianri'^u)  (with  the  exception  of  Mark  10  :  38,  39,  trans- 
lated endure)  is  always  translated  immerse. 

This  conflict  between  principle  and  practice  can  have  no  rational 
reconciliation.  Dip  and  immerse  can  never  be  equivalents  in  pri- 
mary meaning  until  definite  action  becomes  the  equivalent  of 
indefinite  action,  or  limited  time  becomes  the  equivalent  of  un- 
limited time,  or  feebleness  becomes  the  equivalent  of  power.  In 
the  figurative  and  secondar^^  use  of  the  Greek  verb  there  is  not 
the  faintest  shadow  from  dip  falling  on  that  usage.  It  is  invari- 
ably expressive  of  power  and  not  feebleness. 

This  exhibit  receives  confirmation  from  the  Baptist  Quarterly 
itself.  In  the  April  number,  18G9,  p.  143,  we  read  thus:  "We 
repeat  with  emphasis  for  the  consideration  of  our  Baptist  brethren : 
Christian  baptism  is  no  mere  literal  and  senseless  'dipping,'  assur- 
ing the  frightened  candidate  of  a  safe  exit  from  the  water ;  it  is  a 
symbolical  immersion.''^  Thus  under  the  hard  pressure  of  con- 
demning usage,  dipping  (that  once  priceless  pearl  which  has 
adorned  the  brow  of  the  theory  for  two  centuries  and  a  half)  is 
cast  away  into  the  very  sharpest  acid  as  a  "  senseless  "  thing,  and 
dissolves  into  an  "  immersion."  But  this  same  Quarterly  (Octo- 
ber, 1811,  p.  488)  says:  "It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the 
radical  idea  of  baptism  is  a  dipping  into.'"  Now,  what  shall  we 
conclude  when  this  learned  periodical  declares  through  one  of  its 
writers,  that  a  dipping  baptism  is  "  senseless,"  and  through  an- 
other, pronounces  "  dipping "  the  very  thing  which  lies  at  the 
root  of  baptism  ?  The  only  answer  to  be  given  is  this  :  The  usage 
of  the  Greek  word  compelled,  in  the  first  case,  the  abandonment 
of  dijjpivg  as  "  senseless,"  while  the  iron  demand  of  the  theory 
that  ".John's  converts  should  be  dipped  into  the  Jordan  "  required, 
in  the  second  case,  that  the  outcast  and  "senseless"  dipping 
should  (for  the  occasion  at  least)  be  again  taken  into  favor. 

In  applying  the  doctrine  of  the  Baptist  Quarterly  of  1869,  p. 
142 — "  The  law  of  God  in  Revelation  sends  the  Baptist  down  into 
the  waters  of  immersion ;  the  equall}'^  imperative  law  of  God  in 


THE    BAPTISM    RECEIVED.  153 

nature  brings  him  safely  out " — to  the  baptism  under  considera- 
tion, this  question  arises:  "If  the  God  of  Revelation  sent  these 
sinners  of  Pentecost  down  into  the  remission  of  sins  for  an  '  im- 
mersion,' did  the  God  in  nature  imperatively  bring  them  out"? 
If  brought  out  did  they  come  out  in  a  state  of  nature  ("not  having 
swallowed  so  much  as  a  mouthful"  of  remission)  or  in  a  state  of 
grace?  If  in  a  state  of  nature,  what  benefit  comes  from  this  "im- 
mersion "  any  more  than  from  T.  J.  M.'s  dipping,  which  "  gives 
nothing  "?  If  the  sinner  is  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost  into  a 
condition  of  remitted  sin,  why  should  he  by  any  "imperative  law 
of  natui;e  "  be  brought  out  of  that  condition  ?  Why  not  let  him 
stay  in  that  condition  in  which  the  God  of  Revelation  and  the 
Greek  ^aizxi'^u)  put  him  ? 

There  is  nothing  in  this  "Exegetical  Study"  to  win  us  to  "Re- 
pent and  be  dipped  into  water  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  into 
the  remission  of  sins."  We  prefer  the  wisdom  and  grace  of  God 
as  in  the  great  announcement — "  Repent  and  be  baptized,  upon 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  into  the  remission  of  sins."  Repent- 
ance, the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  being  the  immediate  cause  of 
the  baptism  ;  "  upon  "  involving  faith  which  unites  to  Christ  the 
meritorious  foundation,  and  "remission  of  sins"  the  state  of 
gracious  pardon  i?) to  it'/iic/i  we  are  introduced  by  "the  God  of 
Revelation,"  and  out  of  which  no  "  God  of  nature  "  will  ever  with- 
draw us. 


THE  BAPTISM  RECEIVED. 


Acts  2 :  41. 


Ot  jiev  ovv  aafiEvoQ  aTvoSe^a/Lisvoc  rbv  Tioyov  aiirov  kpaivTladrjaav  /cat  tz poaeTeOrjaav 
rf;  ri\ikpa  eKeivri,  tpvxo.i  ojcrel  Tpcax't-^-iai- 

"  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized,  and  were  added 
(to  the  Lord)  that  day  about  three  thousand  souls." 

THE    BAPTISM    PREACHED    BY    PETER   RECEIVED    BY   THE 
REPENTING   AND    BELIEVING. 

In  this  passage  "  baptized  "  stands  without  association  with 
any  word  immediately  explanatory  of  its  nature.  In  such  case 
the  word  itself,  in  consequence  of  varied  use,  is  incompetent  for 
any  specific  self-explanation. 


154  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Plutarch  (see  Classic  Baptism,  p.  306)  gives,  without  explana- 
tion, the  following  quotation  :  ^'•"Ozc  rob'  rajxiaq  ifidTzrcaEv^  Because 
he  baptized  the  stewards,  being  not  stewards,  but  sharks.^^  In  such 
case,  not  having  any  context  to  enlighten,  we  must  be  in  the  dark 
as  to  the  specific  character  of  the  baptism.  It  may  be  a  physical 
baptism,  drowning  them  in  the  sea  making  them  food  for  sharks, 
as  they  like  sharks  had  fed  on  others.  It  might  be  a  baptism  in 
kind  with  their  rapacity,  stripping  them  of  their  rapacious  gains, 
and  bringing  them  into  povert3^  It  might  be  a  mental  or  moral 
baptism,  by  the  open  exposure  of  their  unjust  greed.  Either  of 
these  baptisms  would  suit  the  case,  and  they  are  all,  and  many 
others,  Classic  baptisms ;  but  which,  if  either,  is  the  baptism  in 
fact,  none  can  tell.  Now  in  the  Scriptures  we  have  diverse  bap- 
tisms, and  more  especially  we  have  the  intimately  related,  yet,  iu 
value,  the  infinitely  diverse  baptisms  by  the  Spirit,  thoroughly 
changing  the  condition  of  the  soul,  and  by  water  symbolizing  the 
nature  of  such  change.  In  all  ordinary  cases  it  is  necessary  that 
every  penitent  sinner  believing  upon  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  should 
receive  both  of  these  baptisms,  viz.,  the  real  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  is  exhibited  by  repentance  and  faith,  and  the  S3^m- 
bol  baptism  by  water,  which  betokens  that  changed,  purified  con- 
dition of  soul  out  of  which  repentance  and  faith  do  flow.  From 
the  obligation  upon  all  Christians  to  receive  both  these  baptisms 
(the  invisible  reality  and  the  A'isible  symbol  of  that  reality)  and 
their  ordinary  coexistence,  there  is  an  essential  difficulty  in  deter- 
mining to  which  baptism  reference  is  made  when  it  is  said  of  any 
one  or  of  any  number  of  penitent  sinners — "  they  were  baptized." 
Such  language  may  refer  directly  and  exclusively  to  baptism  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  "into  repentance,"  "into  the  remission  of  sins," 
"into  Christ,"  leaving  unstated  the  reception  of  the  rite  which 
symbolizes  such  baptism  ;  or  this  language  may  refer  directly  and 
exclusively  to  the  symbol  baptism,  and  leave  unstated  the  anterior 
spiritual  baptism.  In  such  case  we  must  learn  the  nature  of  the 
baptism  from  the  context,  and  supply,  accordingly,  the  ellipsis 
from  other  fuller  statements  of  Scripture,  or  we  must  forever  re- 
main in  ignorance  as  to  the  definite  character  of  the  baptism. 

An  illustration  of  this  possible  difficulty  is  furnished  by  1  Cor. 
15 :  29  :  "  What  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead, 
oi  fiar.ri.'^oiJ.eviii  unkfj  rwv  vexftuiv."  Whether  this  baptism  be  a  ritual 
baptism,  or  whether  it  be  a  baptism  of  a  wholly  different  character 
into  which  the  reception  of  a  rite  does  not  enter,  never  has  been 


WAS    IT    A    DIPPING    INTO    WATER?  155 

definitely  determined  among  commentators,  and  probably  never 
will  be,  any  more  than  the  baptism  in  Plutarch. 

No  one  can  say,  that  the  language  in  Acts  2:41  is  self-deter- 
mining as  to  the  nature  of  the  baptism.  It  may,  so  far  as  its  own 
lerms  are  concerned,  refer  exclusively  to  the  baptism  of  the  soul 
by  the  H0I3'  Spirit,  or  the  baptism  of  the  body  by  symbol  water. 
The  context  must  determine  between  the  two,  or  we  must  remain 
in  ignorance. 

Was  it  a  dipping  into  Water  ? 

All  who  reject  the  theory  which  teaches  that  Christian  baptism 
is  a  dipping  into  water,  might  be  well  content  to  allow  this  state- 
ment to  pass  without  questioning  for  a  ritual  baptism,  if  their 
aim  were  merely  to  embarrass  an  opponent  and  not  to  attain  and 
vindicate  the  truth.  For  never  had  any  theory  difficulties,  as 
mountain  upon  mountain  piled  up  upon  it,  like  that  which  bur- 
dens itself  with  the  necessity  for  dipping  these  three  thousand 
into  water,  "that  day." 

1.  Among  the  difficulties  of  the  case  is  the  fact  that  water  is 
neither  mentioned  in  the  passage  nor  in  the  context.  This  is  not 
met  by  saying  it  is  implied  in  "  baptized  ; "  because  the  context 
speaks  of  a  baptism  without  water  in  contrast  with  a  baptism 
with  water — "  John  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holj^  Ghost."  The  baptism  without  water  is  that  of 
which  the  context  speaks  as  executed.  Water  cannot  be  put  into 
"baptized"  by  assumption.  2.  No  one  ever  suggested  that  there 
was  water  in  the  house  or  around  the  house  into  which  these 
thousands  could  be  dipped.  And  the  assumption  that  they  went 
somewhere  else  for  the  dipping  may  be  very  convenient  to  meet 
an  exigenc}^,  but  it  would  be  worth  more  as  evidence,  if  it  could 
be  found  in  the  record.  3.  It  being  admitted,  that  somewhere  in 
or  around  Jerusalem  there  was  "  much  water,"  is  no  help  to  this 
dipping.  It  is  an  assumption  without  evidence  and  against  evi- 
dence, that  reservoirs  of  water  gathered  for  city  purposes  would 
have  been  available  for  dipping  three  thousand  men  into  them. 
4.  If  the  enemies  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  who  seven  weeks 
before  planted  his  Cross  on  Calvary,  and  in  less  time  took  these 
very  men  and  imprisoned  and  scourged  them,  are  now  ready  to 
put  the  city  water-pools  at  their  disposal  for  the  administration 
of  the  distinctive  rite  of  this  hated  sect,  still,  it  remains  to  be 


156  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

shown,  that  Peter  and  the  people  were  in  a  condition  to  avail 
themselves  of  this  the  most  extraordinary  courtesy  from  deadly 
enemies  the  world  ever  knew.  There  is  no  evidence  that  a  man 
or  woman  had  ever  received  ritual  baptism  in  Jerusalem.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  the  Apostles  sought  a  public  exercise  of  theii' 
ministry  during  the  days  of  their  tarrying  at  Jerusalem.  The 
Apostles  came  together  without  the  remotest  idea  of  baptizing 
any  one.  The  people  came  together  with,  if  possible,  still  less 
idea  of  being  baptized.  We  ask  proof  that  the  disciples  and 
people  were  in  a  condition  to  avail  themselves  of  this  assumed 
marvellous  change  upon  the  part  of  their  enemies.  5.  Supposing 
that  the  enemies  of  the  Cross  of  Christ  put  the  cit}^  reservoirs  at 
the  disposal  of  the  men  whom  to-morrow  they  will  imprison  and 
scourge,  and  "  straitly  charge  no  more  to  speak"  in  that  hated 
name,  and  that  the  Apostles  are  ready  to  enter  upon  the  work 
leading  three  thousand  men  into  the  drinking  reservoirs  (some  or 
all)  of  the  city,  what  is  to  be  done  in  the  matter  of  dress  ? 

In  a  dipping  into  water  this  is  as  necessary  to  be  provided  for 
as  the  water.  In  later  times  Jews  and  Christians  put  their  con- 
verts into  the  water  naked.  This  would  be  one  way  of  solving 
the  dress  question.  Were  they  dipped  into  water  in  the  same 
dress  with  which  they  came  to  the  meeting?  If  so,  did  they  go 
home  through  the  streets  in  their  dripping  apparel '/  Did  they 
go  home  to  get  a  change  of  apparel  ?  Where  did  they  go  through 
the  process  of  disrobing  and  enrobing  ?  Were  there  any  females 
among  these  three  thousand?  Did  the  enemies  of  Christianity 
make  special  provision  for  their  privacy  ?  6.  If  the  Jerusalemites 
who  yesterday  cried  "Crucify"  the  Master,  do  to-day  put  their 
city  reservoirs  at  the  service  of  his  disciples,  and  do  open  their 
public  rooms  or  their  private  houses  to  three  thousand  dripping 
men  and  ^omen  to  go  into  their  chambers,  still,  who  are  to  be 
the  baptizers  ?  The  record  does  not  say  that  the  Apostles  bap- 
tized one.  Who  will  say  that  they  could  baptize  all  ?  But  where 
the  inspired  record  is  silent  human  utterauces  are  loud.  We  are 
told,  that  "  the  seventy  "  could  help ;  and  if  that  were  not  enough, 
where  were  the  "one  hundred  and  twenty"?  I  have  not  heard  it 
suggested  that  the  angel  who  "  went  down  into  the  pool  of  Be- 
thesda"  was  doubtless  close  at  hand,  and  as  it  is  not  said  that 
the  Apostles,  or  tlie  Seventy,  or  the  One  hundred  and  twenty, 
performed  tlie  dipping,  it  may  have  been  all  done  by  this  strong 
Angel,  alone.     But  this  addition  to  the  text  may  be  held  as  a 


WAS    IT    A    DIPPING    INTO    AVATER  ?  157 

reserve  force.  It  is,  no  doubt,  worth  quite  as  much  as  the  other 
addenda.  7.  But  supposing  that  "  the  Twelve,"  and  "  the  Seventy," 
and  "the  One  hundred  and  twenty"  were  enough  to  dip  three 
t-housand  men,  I  ask,  if  they  were  adequate  to  the  public  dipping 
into  water  of  one  woman,  if  there  was  so  much  as  one  woman 
among  these  thousands  ?  Where  is  the  evidence  that  such  a 
thing  was  ever  done  by  divine  authority  under  Judaism,  or  was  ever 
inculcated  under  Christianity  ?  It  will  not  do  to  cover  over  this 
very  serious  point  by  saying,  all  disciples  are  to  be  dipped  into 
water,  women  are  disciples,  and  therefore  women  must  be  dipped 
into  water.  We  deny  the  dipping  altogether;  and  sustain  the  de- 
nial by  the  absence  of  fact,  and  precept,  and  the  pronounced  im- 
propriety by  the  age  as  to  the  dipping  of  females  into  water,  pub- 
licly, by  men.  It  will  as  little  do  to  say,  that  those  who  practice 
the  public  dipping  of  females  by  men  into  water  see  no  impro- 
priety in  it.  Females  were  dipped  naked  into  water  for  a  thousand 
years,  and  they  who  did  it  "  saw  no  impropriety  in  it."  All  see 
the  impropriety  now.  And  the  feeling  of  the  million,  to-daj^,  is 
against  the  becomingness  of  the  public  dipping  of  women  into 
water  by  men.  And  this  feeling,  with  solid  evidence,  we  put  as 
a  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  dipping  into  water  of  the  females 
among  the  three  thousand.  8.  As  a  final  difficulty,  in  making  all 
these  de  novo  arrangements,  the  dipping  into  water  of  tliese  thou- 
sands was  to  be  consummated  "  that  day."  The  record  is  express 
and  explicit  on  this  point,  as  to  the  baptism  announced,  whatever 
that  baptism  may  be.  The  baptism  and  the  addition  was  (^v.  Cod. 
Sin.)  within  "that  day." 

The  attempt  to  sustain  the  dipping  into  water  of  these  three 
thousand,  as  disciples  of  the  rejected  Christ,  in  the  cit}-  reservoirs 
of  Jerusalem,  dependent  upon  its  Cross-hating  citizens  for  priv- 
acy to  change  their  dripping  apparel,  or  walking  up  and  down 
the  streets  to  find  a  thousand  "  bath-tubs  "  to  meet  the  exigency, 
seems  to  me  one  of  the  most  irrational  things  that  men  ever  un- 
dertook. And  this  without  one  word,  in  text  or  context,  of  evi- 
dence to  sustain  the  mad  endeavor.  If  it  had  been  said,  that 
these  persons  were  baptized  in  the  Mediterranean,  that  tbe}^  were 
transported  thither  as  Philip  was  transported  to  Azotus  after  the 
baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  and  that  the  baptism  was  performed  by 
"the  angel  that  went  down  into  the  pool  and  troubled  the  water," 
it  would  have  been  just  as  well  sustained  by  Scripture,  and  quite 
as  readily  believed  (with  half  the  training)  by  those  who  now 


158  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

believe  that  three  thousand  men  and  women  were  that  day  dip- 
ped into  water  in  Jerusalem. 

Was  it  a  Ritual  Baptism  in  any  form  ? 

In  attempting  to  show  that  this  was  not  a  ritual  baptism  in  any 
form  we  are  under  no  temptation  to  make  a  point  against  dipping, 
but  the  reverse.  If  the  attempt  should  be  successful,  we  might 
expect  the  warm  thanks  of  the  friends  of  the  theory  for  relieving 
them  fi'om  the  dire  necessity  of  maintaining  one  of  the  most 
flagrant  violations  of  probability,  not  to  sa}'^  possibility,  ever 
undertaken  by  rational  men.  While  the  reception  of  these  thou- 
sands, that  day,  into  the  church  by  dipping  into  water,  is  im- 
probable to  absurdity,  for  reasons  both  moral  and  physical,  their 
reception  by  any  ritual  form  whatever  is,  for  moral  considerations 
mainly,  not  without  embarrassment.  These  thousands  were  all 
pei'sonall}'  strangers  to  the  Apostles,  mostly  from  foreign  lands, 
Parthians,  Medes,  Elamites,  Mesopotamians,  Cretes,  Arabians, 
etc.,  etc.  An  hour  before  they  were  mockers  of  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  declared  the  Apostles  to  be  drunk.  Now,  is 
there  moral  fitness  in  the  reception  of  such  men  into  the  church 
b}'  a  rite  without  any  personal  intercourse  to  learn  their  moral 
condition?  But  the  passage  states  that  the  baptism  was  grounded 
in  the  "glad  reception  of  the  word"  preached.  If  the  baptism 
was  the  work  of  the  Apostles,  then  this  knowledge  must  also  be 
the  knowledge  of  the  Apostles ;  and  if  so,  then  it  must  have  been 
obtained  either  by  divine  illumination  or  by  personal  intercourse; 
but  if  by  a  personal  intercourse  touching  repentance  and  faith, 
the  knowledge  of  Christ  and  the  duty  of  baptism,  then,  how  could 
the  addition  of  three  thousand  be  made  "that  day"?  If  it  be 
said,  that  the  knowledge  was  by  divine  illumination,  then,  it  is  an 
addition  to  the  inspired  record  to  meet  a  difficulty  which  may  be 
as  human  in  its  origin  as  is  the  a<ldition.  Again  ;  while  Alexander 
Campbell,  believing  that  dipping  into  water  is  for  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  on  the  same  plane  with  Repentance  and  faith,  and  Dr. 
Pusey,  believing  that  ritual  bai)tisin  is  for  the  regeneration  of  the 
soul,  may  feel  the  need  of  introducing  this  rite  under  any  the 
most  adverse  circumstances,  yet,  the  evangelical  world,  which  has 
no  such  faith,  must  feel  that  the  crowding  of  a  ritual  baptism 
into  "that  day"  is  something  reniarkal)le,  if  not  inexplicable. 

Let  us,  then,  inquire  whether  this  baptism  may  not  be  that 


WAS    THIS    BAPTISM    BY    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT?  159 

other  baptism  which  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  whether  it  may 
not  better  adjust  itself  to  the  words  and  to  the  facts  of  the  case. 

Was  this  Baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

1.  They  were  bajjtized.  It  is  unnecessary  to  say  a  word  in 
proof  that  this  language  may  express  a  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  is  a  matter  of  universal  admission  that  there  is  a  bap- 
tism b}^  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  this  baptism  is  designated  by 
the  same  word  as  is  used  in  the  case  of  a  ritual  baptism.  Such 
baptism,  therefore,  may  be  expressed  here,  and  the  inquiry  is 
legitimate,  whether  what  may  be  true  is  not  true  in  fact.  The 
affirmative  is  sustained  :  1.  B3'  the  negative  evidence  that  neither 
in  the  text  nor  in  the  context  is  baptism  by  water  mentioned.  2. 
By  the  positive  evidence  that  in  the  context  (1:5)  baptism  by  the 
Holj^  Ghost  is  spoken  of  to  the  express  exclusion  of  baptism  by 
water — "  John  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Ho^  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  It  is  a  matter  of  univer- 
sal admission  that  this  promised  baptism  was  received  "that  day." 
If  it  should  be  said,  "  This  promise  has  direct  and  special  refer- 
ence to  the  Apostles,"  the  answer  is :  This  is  true,  the  Apostles  did 
receive  a  first  and  special  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  "  that  day," 
qualifying  them  for  their  office  ;  but  in  discharging  the  duties  of 
that  office,  the  first  words  of  Peter  are  a  declaration  that  this 
baptism  was  not  to  be  limited  to  the  Apostles.  This  statement 
is  sustained  by  quoting  (2  :  17)  the  prophet  Joel — "  It  shall  come 
to  pass  in  the  last  days,  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh, 
and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy  .  .  .  and  on 
my  servants  and  my  handmaidens  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  .  .  . 
and  whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved." 
The  promise,  then,  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  be  fulfilled  "not 
many  days  "  hence,  was  a  republication  and  special  application 
of  the  promise  through  Joel  a  half  thousand  years  before  of  the 
baptism  of  "  all  flesh  "  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  had  a  primary 
and  special  fulfilment  in  the  case  of  these  thousands.  It  is,  then, 
a  settled  point,  that,  not  only  was  a  baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
promised  and  received  that  da}^,  but  it  was  promised  unto  and  re- 
ceived b}'  these  thousands ;  v.  39,  "  For  the  promise  is  unto  you  and 
to  your  children."  Unless,  now,  there  can  be  positive  evidence, 
that  there  was  another  baptism,  wholl}'  diverse  from  this,  namely, 
by  water,  this  baptism  (which  is  in  evidence  by  the  most  explicit 


160  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

testimoii}')  must  stand  as  the  baptism  and  the  only  baptism,  of 
"that  day." 

They  that  gladly  received  his  word.  This  states  who  were  bap- 
tized, and  why  they  were  baptized.  They  were  the  three  thou- 
sand;  and  the  reason  of  their  baptism  was  the  "glad  reception 
of  Peter's  word."  The  question  now  arises,  Is  there  any  connec- 
tion between  the  "  glad  reception  of  the  word  "  and  baptism  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  ?  The  answer  is,  this  is  the  very  means  by  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  convinces  of  sin,  gives  repentance,  begets  faith, 
regenerates  the  soul,  baptizes  "into  Christ."  Therefore  "the 
word"  is  preached.  And  "the  word  of  God"  is,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  made  "quick  and  powerful,  sharper  than  any  two-edged 
sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit." 
"The  word  of  God,"  on  this  occasion,  "  cut  to  the  heart  "  these 
thousands.  And  when  thus  convinced  of  sin,  Peter  uttered  that 
cheering  word — "  Repent  and  you  shall  be  baptized,  through  faith 
upon  Jesus  Christ,  into  the  remission  of  sins."  This  baptism 
cleansing  from  sin,  is  "  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  "  (Titus  3  :  5).  "  The  word  "  of  Peter  calling 
to  Repentance  and  faith  being  "  gladly  received,"  the  promise, 
grounded  in  that  repentance  and  faith,  was  also  received — "  they 
were  baptized.''^  We  have,  then,  a  statement  of  the  means,  ade- 
quate and  ordained,  through  baptism  by  the  Hol}'^  Ghost,  and  that 
means  bearing  with  divine  energ}'^  upon  these  three  thousand. 
Did  "  the  word  gone  out  of  the  mouth  of  God  return  unto  him 
void,"  or  did  it  "  accomplish  that  whereunto  it  was  sent"  ? 

And  ivere  added.  'EjdanTc^Oyjaav  xa]  npiKTSTiOrjtrav  "  were  baptized 
and  were  added."  "  Whoever  baptized,"  also  "added."  What- 
ever, in  kind,  was  the  baptism,  such,  in  kind,  was  the  addition. 
If  the  Apostles  baptized  ritually,  the  addition  was  to  the  Church 
visible.  If  the  Holy  Ghost  baptized  really,  the  addition  was  to 
the  Church  invisible,  and  to  its  adorable  Head.  Have  we  any 
means  of  knowing  the  character  of  this  addition  ?  To  whom  or 
to  what  was  it  ?  The  passage  does  not  directly  state.  But  light 
may  be  gathered  from  other  passages  close  at  hand.  lu  this  same 
chapter  (v.  47)  it  is  said,  "  The  Lord  added  to  the  Church  daily 
such  as  should  be  saved.''  If  "the  Lord  added"  these,  then  we 
may  believe  it  was  "  the  Lord,"  and  not  the  Apostles,  who  "  added  " 
those  three  thousand.  If  the  Lord  added  "those"  or  "these," 
he  added  them  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts  5:14, 
"  And  believers  "  (upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ)  "  were  the 


WAS    THIS    BAPTISM    BY    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT?  161 

more  added  to  the  Lord."  If  these  believers  upon  the  Lord 
were  "  added  to  the  Lord^''''  then  they  were  added  to  the  invisi- 
ble church  thi'ough  its  adorable  Head,  by  baptism  of  the  Hol}^ 
Ghost.  And  if  these  "  multitudes  both  of  men  and  women  "  were 
added  to  the  Lord,  then  why  not  those  three  thousand  ?  But  if 
they  were  "added  to  the  Lord,^^  then  the}'  were  not  added  by  the 
Apostles  through  ritual  baptism,  but  b}^  the  baptism  of  the  Hoi}"- 
Ghost.  Acts  11:24,  "And  much  people  was  added  unto  the 
Lord."  In  all  these  passages  the  Greek  word  for  "  added  "  is 
the  same.  In  every  passage  where  the  author  of  the  addition  is 
stated,  that  author  is  Divine.  In  every  passage  where  that  to 
which  the  addition  is  made  is  stated,  it  is  to  the  Lord  himself,  or 
by  the  Lord  to  the  church,  necessitating  a  spiritual  union  with 
the  invisible  church. 

Having  proved  that  souls  are  "  added  "  by  the  Lord  to  the 
church  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  souls  are  "  added  "  to 
the  Lord  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  claim,  that  these  three  thousand 
"  were  baptized"  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  "  were  added  ''  to  the 
Lord  by  the  same  divine  Agent. 

"  The  same  day.^^  This  limitation  of  time  is  a  trouble  to  those 
who  insist  on  three  thousand  being  dipped  into  water  without 
preparation  on  their  part,  or  on  that  of  an}'  one  else.  Therefore 
Professor  M.  P.  Jewett  feels  pressed  to  say  (p.  42):  "We  are  not 
informed  whether  fifty.,  or  five  hundred,  or  more,  were  baptized 
on  this  occasion.  .  .  .  '  The  same  day  were  added — not  were  bap- 
tized— about  three  thousand  souls.' "  Prof  Jewett  is  uncertain 
about  "fifty"  being  baptized;  he,  probably,  is  pretty  certain  that 
so  many  as  two  were  "  baptized,"  inasmuch  as  the  verb  is  in  the 
plural  number.  A  more  searching  exegesis  would  reveal  a  happier 
line  of  retreat  from  the  troubles  of  dipping  those  who  were  "bap- 
tized and  added  that  day.^'' 

Others,  not  believing  in  baptism  by  dipping,  yet  believing  that 
it  was  ritual,  have  also  felt  embarrassed  by  the  severe  limitation, 
"that  day."  Bishop  Wilson  says:  '•'•The  same  day,  i.  e.,  at  that 
time,  on  account  of  that  sermon ;  though  they  might  not  all  be 
baptized  in  one  day,  but  were  at  that  time  converted."  Bossuet 
says :  "  Nothing  obliges  us  to  say  that  they  were  all  baptized  on 
the  same  day."  It  is  an  unpleasant  position  to  be  in  when,  to 
maintain  our  views  we  are  compelled  to  say,  that  we  are  not 
"  obliged  "  to  conform  to  the  clear  statement  of  Scripture. 

In  the  interpretation  suggested  we  have  given  every  word  its 

11 


162  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

scriptural  value,  and,  in  doing  so,  we  find  ourselves  without  the 
shadow  of  embarrassment,  and  the  three  thousand  baptized  and 
added  (to  the  Lord)  without  asking  for  the  extension  of  time  one 
moment  beyond  "  that  day." 

It  hardly  needs  to  be  added,  that  this  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  that  house  or  around  that  house,  and  tlie  addition  hereby 
made  by  the  Lord  to  that  church  "  which  is  his  body "  on  that 
day,  does  not  preclude  their  being  received  by  ritual  baptism  into 
the  visible  church  some  other  da}'. 

Our  concern  is  to  give  interpretation  to  the  baptism  here 
announced,  not  to  make  provision  for  some  other  which  is  not 
announced. 

We  have  a  cheerful  confidence  that  a  just  consideration  of  this 
passage  will  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  baptism  which  Peter 
preached — "  into  the  remission  of  sins  " — (not  a  baptism  with 
water,  nor  a  dipping  into  water)  was  precisel}'^  that  bajjtism  which 
these  three  thousand  received. 

To  those  who  suppose  that  these  thousands  were  added  to  the 
visible  church  by  ritual  baptism,  these  questions  may  be  proposed: 
Was  there  a  visible  Christian  church  in  existence  at  Pentecost? 
Was  there  any  one  competent  to  organize  a  Christian  church 
before  Pentecost  ?  Did  not  the  divine  Head  of  the  church  himself 
furnish  the  materials  for  a  church  organization,  officers  and  mem- 
bers, "that  day"?  Was  there  a  Christian  organization  effected, 
as  well  as  tri-millenary  baptism  administered,  "  that  day  "  ?  Were 
they  organized  and  then  baptized, or  baptized  and  then  organized? 

These  are  practical  questions  which  arise  out  of  the  exigencies 
of  the  case,  and  which  must  receive  satisfactory  answers. 


CHRISTIC  BAPTISM:  THE  BAPTISM  PREACHED 
INCORPORATED  IN  A  RITE. 

BAPTISM,    WITH   WATER,    INTO   THE    NAME    OP    THE    LORD    JESUS. 

KITUAL   BAPTISM   OF   THE   SAMAKITANS. 

Acts  8 :  12-16. 
— /nbvov  6e  (3e[iaTrTi(Tfisvoi  vTTTJpxov  elg  to  ovofia  rov  Kvfjlov  'Irjcov, 

"  But  when  they  believed  Philip,  preaching  the  things  concerning  the  king- 
dom of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized  (k^anTi^ovTo) 
both  men  and  women. 

"  Then  Simon  himself  believed  also;  and  when  he  was  baptized  (/JaTrr^cr^eif), 
he  continued  with  Philip,  and  wondered,  beholding  the  miracles  and  signs 
which  were  done.  .  .  .  Only  they  were  baptized  [^efiaTTTLaiitvoi)  into  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

THE    FIRST    STATED   RITUAL    BAPTISM    UNDER    CHRISTIANITY. 

The  baptism  just  considered,  originally  announced  by  Joel, 
reannounced  as  close  at  hand  bj'  Christ,  interpreted  and  held 
forth  in  cheering  promise  by  Peter,  and  novF  exhibited  for  the 
first  time  under  Christianity,  and  revealed  as  endowing  the 
Apostles  for  their  wondrous  work  and  extending  remission  of  sin 
to  the  guilty  and  the  perishing  through  repentance  and  faith  upon 
Christ,  has  demanded  special  attention,  becalise  it  is  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  baptism  of  Christianity.  It  stands 
forth,  in  the  divine  wisdom,  not  only  as  first  in  the  order  of  time, 
but  solitary  and  unapproachable  in  power  and  in  excellence.  The 
baptism  now  about  to  be  considered  justly  claims  special  atten- 
tion, because  it  is  the  first  ritual  baptism  under  Christianity. 
Such  attention  is  demanded  not  so  much  for  considerations  in- 
trinsic, as  extrinsic ;  not  so  much  for  the  inherent  truth,  as  for 
the  adherent  error;  not  so  much  for  that  which  is  in  its  own  sub- 
stance, as  that  of  which  its  substance  is  the  shadow.  The  ritual 
baptism  of  Christianity  has  no  independent  existence  as  a  bap- 

(  163  ) 


164  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

tism.  It  is  solely  the  adumbration  of  the  baptism  b}'  the  Holy 
Ghost.  They  are  not  two  baptisms,  the  one  spiritual  and  the 
other  physical,  but  "one  baptism,"  the  former  real,  the  latter 
ritual^  symbol  of  the  real.,  They  are  no  more  two  baptisms,  di- 
verse in  nature,  than  a  rock  and  the  shadow  of  that  rock  are  two 
rocks,  divevse  in  nature.  Ritual  baptism  with  water  is  not  the 
effecting  of  a  physical  baptism  by  water  as  a  fluid,  but  it  is  the 
syrabolization  of  the  real  and  purifying  baptism  in  the  soul  by  the 
nature  of  water  as  a  pure  and  purifying  element.  Ritual  baptism, 
therefore,  is  the  incorporation  and  visible  exhibition  of  the  "  one 
baptism  "  of  Christianity  which  is  proclaimed  in  its  preaching  as 
essential  to  salvation  and  effected  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  puri- 
fying the  soul  by  the  atoning  blood  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  and 
investing  it  with  his  spotless  righteousness. 

This  ritual  baptism  we  will  now  consider  as  presented  before 
us  in  the  words  of  inspiration. 

BAPTISM    INTO    THE    NAME    OF   THE    LORD   JESUS. 

The  point  of  supremest  importance  in  this  passage  of  Scripture 
is  the  express  and  clear  statement  that  the  baptism  was  "  into 
the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

The  essential  character  of  any  baptism  is  made  known  in  the 
clearest  and  most  exhaustive  manner  when  the  receptive  element 
(that  into  which  the  baptized  object  really  or  verball}^  passes)  is 
declared.  Thus,  when  I  am  told  that  a  living  man  is  baptized 
into  WATER,  I  know  that  he  is  put  into  a  condition  which,  by  its 
terms,  has  no  self-limitation,  and  which  subjects  to  the  full  influ- 
ence of  water  as  destructive  to  the  function  of  the  lungs,  and 
therefore  issues,  of  necessit}^,  in  the  destruction  of  life  by  suffo- 
cation. If  the  baptism  is  into  fire,  I  know,  by  like  reasoning,  that 
the  issue  is  the  destruction  of  life  by  burning.  So,  if  the  baptism 
is  into  INSENSIBILITY,  the  issue  declared  is  a  condition  of  complete 
unconsciousness ;  or,  if  into  impurity,  a  condition  of  complete 
pollution.  No  form  of  language  can  be  clearer  or  more  exhaust- 
ively expressive  of  a  designed  thought. 

There  is  neither  change  of  principle  nor  obscurity  of  thought 
induced  by  a  person  being  introduced  as  the  receptive  element. 
Who  would  stumble  at  the  statement,  "I  have  dipped  into  Aria- 
totle,^^  any  more  than  at  the  statement,  "  I  have  dipped  into  the 
writings  of  Aristotle  ?"     He  is  "  imbued  with  Plato,^^  rather  than 


BAPTISM    INTO    THE    NAME    OF    THE    LORD    JESUS.      165 

"  imbued  with  the  philosophy  of  Plato?"  "He  is  immersed  in 
Shaki<peare,^^  rather  than  "  immersed  in  the  dramas  of  Shak- 
speare?"  "He  is  steeped  in  VoUaire,^^  rather  than  "steeped  in 
the  infidelity  of  Voltaire?"  As  the  names  of  Aristotle,  Plato,  Shak- 
speare,  and  Voltaire,  are  so  intimately  associated  with  certain 
distinctive  conceptions  that  the  names  alone  are  suggestive  and 
representative  of  them,  so  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  is  indis- 
solubly  and  solely  connected  with  the  sacrificial  atonement  for 
sin,  and  it  is  therefore  a  difference  in  form  and  not  in  thought 
when  sinners  are  said  to  be  baptized  "into  the  remission  of  sins," 
or  "  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  from  whom  the  remission 
of  sins  alone  proceeds — "  Unto  him  that  loved  us  and  washed  us 
from  our  sins  by  his  blood  be  glory  forever  and  ever." 

IMPORT    OF    BAPTISM    INTO    THE    NAME    OF    THE    LORD    JESUS. 

As  Greek  Classic  writers  leave  no  room  to  doubt  that  a  baptism 
"  £L^  OdXaffffav "  expresses  a  condition  issuing  in  drowning,  and 
Jewish  uninspired  writers  do  as  explicitly  use  a  baptism  ej? 
dvai(7(irj(T{av  to  express  a  condition  of  complete  unconsciousness, 
so  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  do  not  leave  a 
shadow  of  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  in  which  they  use  a  bajjtism 
"  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.^^ 

1.  Evidence  of  this  meaning  is  found  in  the  language  express- 
ing the  baptism  preached  and  ritually  administered  by  John  the 
Forerunner.  John,  as  preparing  the  way  of  the  coming  Messiah, 
preached  "  Repentance  "=  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  and  to  those 
who  "  brought  forth  fruit  meet  for  repentance,"  he  administered 
a  rite  in  which  water  api)lied  to  the  body  was  a  symbol  of  the 
purification  of  the  soul  consequent  upon  repentance.  The  repent- 
ance demanded  and  professed  was  expressed  in  the  ritual  formula, 
"I  baptize  thee,  with  water,  into  Repentance."  A  baptism  "into 
repentance,"  that  is  to  say,  a  condition  of  the  soul  completely 
under  the  influence  of  godly  sorrovv  for  sin,  was  demanded  by  the 
preaching,  and  this  same  condition  was  set  forth  by  word  and  by 
symbol  in  the  rite.  In  order  that  men  might  be  encouraged  to 
hear  and  obe}'  the  call  to  a  baptism  into  repentance,  John  preached 
another  baptism,  namely,  "  the  baptism  of  repentance  into  the 
REMISSION  OF  SINS ;"  hereb}^  teaching  the  people  that  the  baptism 
'■'■  into  Bepentance '^  was  not  the  sole  or  ultimate  baptism  to  be 
received,  but  was  only  antecedent  to  another  baptism  inseparable 


166  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

from  it,  namely,  a  baptism  "  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  the 
strongest  possible  expression  declarative  of  a  condition  in  which 
there  was  complete  pardon  of  all  sin.  While  repentance  is  indi- 
cated by  John  as  the  immediate  agency  in  the  baptism  "  into  the 
remission  of  sin,"  he  teaches  that  its  primary  and  worth}'  source 
is  in  "  the  Lamb  op  God  that  (aketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world," 
and  it  is  in  order  to  his  manifestation  that  he  had  come  baptizing 
with  water  (John  1  :  29-81). 

2.  This  phrase  receives  farther  elucidation  from  the  preaching 
of  Peter  at  Pentecost.  To  sinners  under  deep  conviction  of  their 
guilt  and  righteous  exposure  to  condemnation  inquiring — "What 
must  we  do?"  he  answers  b}'  demanding,  as  did  Johu,  Repent- 
ance, and  cheering,  as  did  he,  with  the  promise  of  a  baptism  there- 
upon "  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  basing  this  promise  more  vividly 
than  the  Forerunner  could  do,  upon  the  Name  of  Jesus  Christ 
"  whom  ye  have  crucified."  Here  are  the  same  elements  in  the 
preaching,  and  the  same  characteristics  in  tlie  baptisms,  of  John 
and  of  Peter.  Tiiey  have  the  same  issue — remission  of  sin  through 
Jesus  Christ  '*  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world." 

3.  This  formula  is  also  brought  into  very  clear  light  hy  those 
words  of  our  Lord,  "  Ye  shall  indeed  be  baptized  with  the  bap- 
tism that  I  am  baptized  with"  (Mark  10:39).  This  baptism  was 
"into  an  atoning  death"  on  Calvary.  B3'  undergoing  this  bap- 
tism He  secured  to  himself  the  power  to  remit  sin,  so  that  all  who 
are  baptized  into  him  partake  of  his  baptism  in  its  sin-remitting 
power. 

These  sources  of  evidence  bring  us  to  this  clear  issue :  As  it 
was  a  matter  of  ultimate  indifference  under  the  ministry  of  John 
whether  it  was  said,  that  the  soul  was  baptized  "into  repentance," 
or  bai)tized  "  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  inasmuch  as  under  the 
economy  of  grace  these  baptisms  were  inseparable,  so,  under  the 
ministry  of  Peter  and  Pliilip  it  was  a  matter  of  verbal  and  not  real 
diilerence,  when  the  soul  was  said  to  be  baptized  into  the  remis- 
sion of  sin  or  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  because  the 
one  could  have  no  existence  without  the  other.  But  as  the  cause 
is  nobler  than  the  effect,  it  is  becoming  that  under  Christianity, 
when  we  have  a  full  revelation  of  the  source  whence  comes  the 
remission,  the  l)aptism  should  be  proclaimed  not  as  into  the  effect, 
but  as  into  the  source  of  tliat  effect,  which  is  Jesus  Christ,  without 
the  sheddiu":  of  whose  blood  there  would  be  no  remission  of  sin. 


WAS    THE    BAPTISM    RITUAL    OR    REAL?  167 

WAS    THE    BAPTISM    RITUAL   OR   REAL? 

Thus  lar  we  have  only  spoken,  in  general,  of  the  force  of  the 
terms  in  this  formula.     Their  practical  value  must  be  determined 
by  another  question,  namel}',  Was  the  baptism  real  or  ritual  ? 
The  baptism  of  Christianity,  which  is  the  purification  of  the  soul 
by  the  blood  of  atonement,  has  a  twofold  exhibition  in  Scripture  : 
1.  As  a  REALITY,  in  the  complete  change  in  the  condition  of  the 
soul  effected  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     2.  As  a  rite,  in 
which  this  changed  condition  of  the  soul  is  declared  as  a  necessity, 
and  its  nature  exhibited  by  an  appropriate  S3'mbol.     The  former 
of  these  baptisms  is  necessary  to  salvation;  the  latter  is  obliga- 
tory, as  of  divine  appointment,  based  in  divine  wisdom  and  good- 
ness as  well  as  divine  sovereignty.     The  difference  of  inherent 
value  between  the  two  is  infinite.     The  one  is  the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation ;  the  other  is  the  power  of  a  symbol.     The  one  is 
spiritual,  is  designed  for  a  spiritual  result,  and  has  inherent  power 
(that  of  the  Spirit  of  God)  to  produce  such  result;  the  other  is 
not  spiritual,  is  not  designed  in  itself  for  a  spiritual  result,  and 
has  not  inherent  power  (it  is  simple  water)  to  produce  any  spirit- 
ual result.    It  is  obvious,  then,  that  the  value  of  baptism  as  spoken 
of  in  Scripture  can  never  be  rightly  apprehended  until  a  true 
answer  be  given  to  the  inquiry- — Was  it  a  real  or  a  sjanbol  bap- 
tism ?     And  it  should  be  well  understood,  that  this  inquiry  is  by 
no  means  equivalent  to  this  other — "Was  it  a  spiritual  or  a  physi- 
cal baptism?  "     There  is  no  such  thing  in  Scripture  as  a  physical 
baptism.     The  baptism  symbolized  by  water  is  not  another  bap- 
tism, but  the  very  baptism  actualized  b}'  the  Holy  Ghost  declared 
by  the  ritual  woi'ds   and   illustrated  by  the  ritual  symbol.     In 
answer  to  the  question — What  baptism  did  the  Samaritans  re- 
ceive ?  it  must  be  answered  :  They  were  generally  baptized  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  regenerating  the  soul,  remitting  sin,  giving  repent- 
ance, uniting  by  faith  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  also  were 
baptized  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  with  the  visible 
ritual  sjanbol  of  this  baptism.     A  ritual  baptism  is  not  expressly 
stated,  but  the  evidence  for  it  leaves  the  fact  beyond  question. 
The  evidence  is  as  follows:   L  It  is  stated  in  v.  12  that  the  bap- 
tism was  subsequent  to  the  believing.     If  the  baptism  were  ritual 
it  would  of  necessity,  in  the  case  of  these  Samaritans,  be  sequent 
to  the  believing.     But  if  the  baptism  were  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
then  the  believing  and  the  baptism  would  be  coincident  and  in- 


168  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

separable.  Certainly  the  soul  is  not  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
"  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  subsequently  to  its  believing 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  still,  as  "  believing  "  is  a  mani 
Testation  of  the  baptism  of  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  might 
be  spoken  of  as  subsequent  in  the  order  of  time.  2.  Evidence 
for  a  ritual  baptism  may  be  found  in  the  statement,  that  "  both 
men  and  women "  were  baptized.  In  a  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  it  would  be  unnecessary  to  specify  "women,"  because  from 
the  nature  of  the  case  they  are  equally  with  men  the  subjects  of 
this  baptism.  This,  however,  is  not  true  as  to  religious  rites.  It 
was  not  true,  certainly,  under  Judaism.  There  is  no  scriptural 
statement  or  fact  showing,  with  any  certainty,  that  "  women  " 
were  included  in  the  ritual  baptism  of  John.  There  is  much,  be- 
3^ond  this  negative  element,  to  tiirow  doubt  upon  it.  (I.)  John's 
ministry  was  temporary.  It  lasted  but  for  a  few  months.  Com- 
pleteness, therefore,  did  not  belong  to  it.  "  Women,"  as  a  class, 
were  not  necessarily  included  in  its  rite.  (2.)  John's  ministry 
was  specific.  While  his  preaching  "  Repent,"  was  as  applicable 
to  "women"  as  to  men,  still,  that  repentance  had  an  immediate 
issue,  namely,  "to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord,"  that  when  "  he 
came  to  his  own"  he  might  be  "received  by  his  own."  This 
rational  reception  depended  upon  the  active  ruling  classes  rather 
than  upon  the  "  women."  The  "  daughters  of  Jerusalem  "  wept 
for  him  when  the  priest  and  the  ruler  rejected  him.  (3.)  John's 
ministry  was  not  a  ministry  of  organization.  He  organized  noth- 
ing. He  addressed  individuals.  He  did  not  say,  "  The  promise 
is  to  you  and  to  your  children.'"  Peter  did  so  say.  He  did  not 
"take  up  little  children  in  his  arms  and  bless  them."  Christ  did 
so  do.  He  did  not  visit  homes  to  preach.  His  ministry  was  in 
the  wilderness.  As  the  Scriptures  do  not  say,  that  "  both  men 
and  women  "  received  John's  ritual  baptism,  while  it  does  say 
that  they,  in  common,  received  Christian  baptism,  so,  the  general 
features  of  his  ministry  give  emphasis  to  that  silence,  and  point 
to  the  conclusion,  that  neither  women,  nor  children,  nor  the  family, 
as  such,  were  embraced  in  the  ritual  baptism  of  John.  While, 
itberefore,  the  substance  of  his  ministry  and  baptism  was  the  same 
as  that  under  the  gospel,  we  must  not  confound  or  measure  his 
temporary,  limited,  and  inorganic  ministry  with  the  permanent, 
•aniversal,  and  organizing  ministry'  of  Christianit}'- 

We  may  set  down  the  statement,  that  "  both  men  and  women  " 
mere  baptised  by  Philip  ("children"  had  already  (Acts  2:39) 


WAS    THE    BAPTISM    RITUAL    OR    REAL?  169 

been  taken  to  the  bosom  of  Christianity  by  Peter)  as  referring  to 
their  ritual  baptism.  3.  Farther  evidence  to  this  conclusion  may 
be  found  in  v.  16,  "  Only  they  were  baptized  into  the  Name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus."  This  is  conclusive  against  a  baptism  into  water, 
unless  two  utterly  diverse  things  can  be  shown  to  be  one  and  the 
same  thing.  It  does  not,  however,  determine  in  favor  of  a  bai> 
tism  with  symbol  water  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  as 
against  the  real  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Nor  is  such  determination  established  by  the  statement,  that 
the  Apostles  "  prayed  for  them  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost,  for  as  j^et  he  was  fallen  upon  none  of  them,"  only  the}' 
were  baptized  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  This  state- 
ment is  conclusive  against  the  doctrine  of  a  baptism  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  establishes  the  doctrine  that  baptism  is  by  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  but  it  is  not  conclusive  against  but  rather  implies,  that 
they  had  alread}'  been  baptized  by  the  Hol}^  Ghost  "  into  the 
Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  There  is  nothing  more  certain  than 
that  the  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  limited  to  a  single 
species,  namely,  to  that  which  regenerates,  uniting  to  Christ  by 
repentance  and  faith,  with  the  remission  of  sins.  The  baptism  of 
the  Apostles  at  Pentecost  did  not  belong  to  this  species  of  bap- 
tism. That,  surely,  was  not  a  regenerative  baptism.  That  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost  received  by  Cornelius  and  his  friends  at 
Caesarea  was  not,  or  not  merely,  a  regenerative  baptism.  And 
this  baptism  at  Samaria,  by  the  laj'ing  on  of  the  Apostles'  hands 
and  prayer,  was  not  a  regenerative  baptism.  The  baptisms  at 
Jerusalem,  and  Caesarea,  and  Samaria,  belong  to  the  same  species, 
namely,  of  miraculous  endowment  for  special  ends,  and  are  wholly 
diverse  from  that  species  of  baptism  which  regenerates  the  soul, 
remits  sin,  and  unites  to  Christ.  This  distinction  is  clearly  taught 
in  the  passage  before  us,  where  baptism  "into  the  Name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus"  is  broadly  separated  from  that  baptism  of  miraculous 
gifts  which  was  obvious  to  the  senses,  and  which  (v.  18)  "  Simon 
saw,"  and  the  multitude  of  Pentecost,  and  "the  circumcision"  at 
Caesarea,  "  heard."  This  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  therefore 
(received  subsequent  to  the  arrival  of  Peter  and  John),  does  not 
show  that  they  had  not  received  that  baptism  of  the  Hol,y  Ghost, 
which  is  "  into  Christ,"  before  their  arrival.  While,  therefore,  we 
may  believe  that  the  statement  of  a  baptism  "  into  the  Name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus"  refers  especiall}'  to  a  symbol  baptism,  yet  the 


170  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

proof  is  not  hereby  made  absolute,  much  less  that  the  real  baptism 
is  exclnded. 

4.  There  is,  however,  one  other  source  of  evidence,  which  must 
end  all  doubt.  It  is  found  in  the  baptism  of  Simon.  We  are 
told  in  V.  13,  that  "Simon  was  baptized;"  and  in  vv.  21-23  we 
are  farther  told,  that  "  he  had  neither  part  nor  lot  in  Christ,"  that 
"  his  heart  was  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God,"  and  that  "  he  was 
in  the  gall  of  bitterness."  Now,  no  man  was  ever  baptized  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  and  remained 
"without  part  or  lot"  in  him,  having  "a  heart  not  right  in  the 
sight  of  God,"  and  "in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bonds  of  iniquity." 
It  follows,  therefore,  of  necessity,  that  Simon  had  not  received 
that  real  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  regenerates  the  soul 
and  unites  to  Christ.  But  baptism,  with  symbol  water,  "into  the 
Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  has  no  power  to  regenerate  the  soul,  or 
to  change  its  relations  to  God,  or  iniquity  ;  and  as  Simon,  after 
baptism,  remained  unregenerate,  out  of  Christ,  and  in  iniquity,  it 
follows  of  necessity,  that  his  baptism  must  have  been  by  symbol, 
and  by  symbol  only. 

WATER    NOT    MENTIONED. 

It  being  made  certain  that  there  was  a  ritual  baptism  at  Samaria, 
it  is  no  less  certain  that  S3'rabol  water  was  used  in  the  administra- 
tion, for  this  is  the  element  and  the  onl}^  element  of  divine  ap- 
pointment. As  there  is  no  express  statement  of  the  presence  of 
water,  so,  of  course,  there  is  no  express  statement  of  the  manner 
of  its  use.  We  must,  therefore,  supply  the  ellipsis  from  other 
passages  where  water  is  mentioned,  and  as  it  is  mentioned.  There 
is,  happily,  no  embarrassment  in  so  doing,  for  this  element  never 
appears  in  the  administration  of  baptism  except  in  one  form,  that 
of  the  Dative.  In  Matthew  and  John,  the  form  h  uSart  appears  ; 
in  Mark  (Cod.  Sin.)  and  Luke,  udart,  without  a  preposition.  As 
Luke  is  the  writer  of  Acts,  the  ellipsis  can  only  be  suppUed  in  that 
form  invariably  used  by  him,  both  in  his  Gospel  and  in  the  Acts. 
The  passage  would  then  read  thus  :  mJart  ,3s,3a-Tc>T,'j.i'^()c  eiq  rJ  ovo/za, 
or  /3£/Sa7rr£rT/jr.c^w<:  udart  ei^  to  ow>,ua,  the  first  order  appearing  in  the 
Gospel  by  Luke  (3  :  16),  tlie  second  in  the  Acts  (I  :  5).  As  to  the 
translation  of  these  words,  I  doubt  whether  there  is  a  scholar 
living  who,  meeting  in  Classic  Greek  with  i3a-zi%w  tluis  associated 
with  the  Dative  and  the  Accusative,  would  think  of  any  other 


CONFIRMATORY    PATRISTIC    QUOTATIONS.  171 

translation  than  one  which  would  make  the  Dative  to  express 
agency,  and  the  Accusative  to  express  the  receiving  element.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  no  Baptist  scholar  who  has  ever  trans- 
lated £('?  with  its  case  thus  associated  with  ^anri'loj  outside  of  the 
Scriptures,  by  any  other  word  than  into^  and  under  like  circum- 
stances they  have  (with  wellnigh  the  same  undeviating  uniformity) 
translated  the  Dative  as  indicating  the  instrument.  There  is  no 
just  reason  for  abandoning  tliis  uniformity  when  we  come  to  the 
Scriptures.  The  only  allowable  translation,  then,  must  be  '^  xoith 
water,  baptized  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  or,  "  were  bap- 
tized, with  water,  into  the  Name  of  the  Loi'd  Jesus."  The  only 
matter  left  to  choice  is  the  order  of  words  ;  for  the  translation 
itself,  in  view  of  the  whole  range  of  usage,  there  is  no  choice. 
The  syntax  thus  developed  is  identically  the  same  with  that  in 
John's  baptism — fiaTzri^u}  h  u^an,  uSuTi,  ei^  [isToyotav — here  the  water 
occupies  the  position  of  sj^mbol  agency,  and  repentance  (verbally) 
that  of  receiving  element.  The  fact  that  the  symbol  agency  re- 
mains the  same,  both  under  John's  ministry  and  under  the  Chris- 
tian ministr^^,  while  the  verbally  receiving  element  which  denotes 
the  nature  of  the  baptism  is  changed  (in  conformity  with  the  dis- 
tinctive characteristics  of  the  one  and  the  other  ministry)  is  a 
demonstrative  confirmation  of  the  interpretation  demanded  by 
the  S3nitax.  John's  ministry  demands  a  baptism  "into  repent- 
ance;" and  we  have  it.  The  Christian  ministry  demands  a  bap- 
tism "into  Christ;"  and  we  have  it.  No  other  defensible  and 
rational  translation  can  be  given. 

This  is  the  view  of  all  Patristic  writers.  They  universally  re- 
gai'd  the  water  as  occupying  the  position  of  agency,  and  "  Re- 
pentance," "  Remission  of  sins,"  "  Christ,"  etc.,  as  the  verbal  ele- 
ment giving  character  to  the  baptism.  This  is  true  in  whatever 
form  the  water  is  used  by  them,  whether  by  covering,  or  pouring, 
or  sprinkling.  The  water  ever  had,  in  their  estimation,  a  divine 
energy  as  an  agency  in  baptism,  and  never  occupied  in  their  view 
the  position  of  a  mere  receptacle. 


CONFIRMATORY    PATRISTIC    QUOTATIONS. 

The  evidence  that  early  Christian  writers  I'egarded  water  in 
baptism  as  agency,  and  the  receptive  element  as  verbal  and  ideal 
only,  is  complete,  as  the  following  quotations  (a  few  out  of  a  num- 
ber without  number)  will  show : 


172  CHRISTTC    BAPTISM. 

Clemens  Romanus,  885  :  RanTitrOivreq  ydp  ei^  rov  too  Kopioo  Odvarov, 
xai  ei't  TT^v  dvatrzafTtv  aurou, 

"Having  been  baptized  into  the  death  of  the  Lord  and  into 

his  RESURRECTION." 

"  Into"  brings  under  the  full  influence  of  "  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  the  Lord."  Unto,  for,  in  order  to,  subvert  the  divinely 
taught  baptism  of  the  Scriptures. 

Apostolical  Canons.  42  (Gale,  191)  ;  rpia  [ia-Kxiaimra  .  ,  h  iid-Ti<TiJ.a 
TO  eiq  Tov  Odvarov  rou  hupiou. 

"Three  baptisms"  (into  the  name  of  the  Father — and  of  the 
Son — and  of  the  Holy  Ghost),  "  one  baptism  which  is  into  the 
DEATH  of  the  Lord." 

Among  the  errors  now  introduced  was  a  ^Hhree-one'^  (trinity) 
baptism,  baptizing,  distinctively,  into  each  Name  of  the  Trinity. 
"One  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord"  was  condemned. 
Under  this  error  stands  out  the  truth,  that  the  several  persons 
of  the  Trinity  (in  the  one  case)  and  "the  death  of  the  Lord"  (in 
the  other  case)  constitute  the  ideal  element  of  the  baptism. 

Cyprian,  1112:  "  In  nomine  Jesu  Christi  baptizati  esse — Bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."  "In  nomine"  is  an  improper 
translation  of  el<;  to  ovo/m.  It  shows,  however,  a  rejection  of  the 
translation  of  et'?-  by  unto,  for,  in  order  to.  "  In  nomine  "  does 
not  admit  of  such  translation.  It  does,  however,  admit  of  inness, 
which  is  expressed  by  el:;,  and  must  be  so  interpreted.  While 
"in  nomine"  corrects  the  error  which  would  translate  the  prepo- 
sition by  for,  unto,  in  order  to,  it  has  given  origin  to  a  new  error, 
expressed  b}'-  the  wholly  foreign  conception  by  the  authority  of. 
The  Greek  ei'c  rd  bvopa,  and  the  proper  Latin  form  "  zn  nomen," 
and  the  only  just  English  expression  into  the  name,  do  all  imper- 
atively reject  any  such  interpretation. 

Methodius,  149:  "  £i'?  XptffTov  i3e,3anT{<rfj.hiiJv — 'Touch  not  my 
christs  (anointed  ones),  and  do  my  prophets  no  harm.'  As  if 
those  baptized  into  Christ  (the  Anointed)  were  made  christs 
(anointed  ones)  by  partaking  of  the  Spirit"  (b}'  which  Christ  was 
anointed). 

Here,  in  addition  to  the  syntax,  we  have  an  argument  drawn 
from  the  iini)ort  of  the  name  "Christ"  (^=  Anointed),  showing, 
that  those  ba[)tized  into  "the  Anointed  One"  become  thereby 
"anointed  ones,"  just  as  any  object  put  into  ointment  becomes, 
thereby,  anointed.  They  who  are  baptized  into  water  will  never 
thereby  become  "  anointed  ones." 


CHANGE    OF    FOKMULA.  173 

Oriojen,  III,  1855  :  "Flnvius  Dei  Salvator  noster  Dorainus,  in 
quo  baptizamur — Our  Lord  and  Saviour  is  ttie  river  of  God,  in 
whicli  we  are  baptized." 

Here,  as  in  the  preceding  case,  we  have,  iu  addition  to  the 
syntax,  the  most  indubitable  evidence  (by  the  likening  of  the 
Saviour  to  a  river),  that  Origen  believed  that  the  baptism  of  the 
Bible  was  not  uiito^  nor  for,  nor  in  order  to,  nor  by  the  authority 
of,  but  ^Hnto  Christ," 

These  quotations  might  be  indefinitely  multiplied.  Early  Chris- 
tian writers  present  but  one  aspect  of  Christian  baptism.  It  is 
never  into  a  physical  element,  but  always  '■^ iiito  Christ"  or  its 
equivalent.  This  statement  has  no  reference  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  water  in  early  ages  was  used ;  that  is  a  different  matter 
and  will  be  noticed  in  its  place. 

CHANGE    OF    FORMULA. 

Having  seen  that  the  baptism  administered  by  Philip  was  a 
baptism  ei<;  to  ovoiia  zoo  Kupiou  'Irjaou,  it  is  necessary  to  call  atten- 
tion, at  least  briefly,  to  its  apparent  want  of  accord  with  the 
formula  announced  in  Matt.  28 :  19  and  which  at  an  early  period 
superseded  that  formula  which  appears  in  this  baptism  at  Sama- 
ria; but  which  is  the  only  formula  that  appears  throughout  the 
New  Testament  in  connection  with  the  administration  of  Chris- 
tian baptism.  The  fact  of  such  change  is  quite  remarkable,  and 
calls  for  a  strict  inquiry  into  the  essential  value  of  each  formula 
and  their  relations  to  each  other.  This  will  be  done  when  we 
come  to  consider  Matt.  28 :  19.  At  present  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact,  that  the  formula  used  throughout  the 
New  Testament  in  the  administration  of  ritual  baptism  is  not 
that  which  appears  in  Matthew ;  to  the  fact,  that  this  departure 
from  the  supposed  commanded  formula  was  recognized  by  early 
Christian  writers;  and,  to  the  attempt  made  by  them  and  othei's 
to  unify  the  two. 

Basil  of  Gaesarea  and  others. 

The  following  quotation  is  from  Basil  of  Caesarea,  IV,  116: 
"  Let  no  one  be  deceived  by  the  fact  of  the  Apostle  frequently 
omitting,  in  mentioning  baptism,  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  nor  imagine,  on  this  account,  that  the  invocation 
of  these  names  is  unimportant.     'As  many,' says  he,  '  as  have 


174  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ.'  And  again,  '  As 
many  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  been  baptized  into 
his  death.'  For  the  naming  of  Christ  is  the  confession  of  every 
one;  for  it  reveals  God  who  anoints,  and  Christ  who  is  anointed, 
and  the  Spirit  who  is  the  ointment,  as  we  are  taught  by  Peter  in 
the  Acts,  'Jesus  of  Nazareth  whom  God  anointed  witli  tlie  Holy 
Ghost.'  And  in  Isaiah  61:1,  and  the  Psalmist,  44  :  8.  The  Apostle, 
however,  sometimes  seems  to  make  mention  only  of  the  Spirit, 
on  the  subject  of  baptism  ;  '  For,'  says  he,  '  we  are  all  baptized 
by  one  body  into  one  Spirit'  (1  Cor.  12:1.3).  And  with  this 
agrees  the  passage,  '  But  ye  shall  be  baptized  b}'  the  Holy  Ghost ;' 
and  that,  '  He  shall  baptize  you  l)y  the  Holy  Ghost.'  But  not  on 
this  account  would  any  one  say,  that  baptism  was  complete  in 
which  the  name  of  the  Spirit  only  was  invoked." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  give  the  Greek  of  this  passage  as  there  is 
nothing  dependent  upon  its*  form.  The  force  of  the  sentiment 
turns  on  the  form  of  the  Scripture  quotations,  especially  Gal. 
3:2*7,  £i'<?  X[ji(7rov  ijSanritTOrjTe ;  Rom.  6:3,  iijaTTTiffOr^fiev  c'.q  XptuTuv 
'Irjaovv;  ££?  rov  OdvaroVj  1  Cor.  12  :  13,  iv  iv]  Ifveuiiari  ei(;  tv  aujiia  h^ian- 

In  this  last  quotation  Basil  (designedly  or  undesignedly)  re- 
verses the  grammatical  form  and  sentiment,  making  it  iv  ew  (rcu/iari 
eiq  iv  IhsoiJLa^  by  one  body  into  one  Spirit,  instead  of  "  by  one  Spirit 
into  one  body."  There  is  no  foundation,  however,  for  the  remark 
of  Basil — that  there  is  even  a  semblance  of  "the  Spirit"  being 
mentioned  alone  in  any  baptism  in  a  form  parallel  to  £l<;  to  ovofia 
Xpcffztiu.  The  Dative  in  which  "the  Spirit"  always  appears  ex- 
presses the  agency  in  effecting  the  baptism,  while  the  Accusative 
in  which  "Christ"  (or  its  equivalent)  always  appears  expresses 
the  receiving  element. 

C3'prian,  1120,  grounds  the  distinctive  use  of  the  formula  of 
baptism  in  the  diverse  position  occupied  b^'  the  Jew  and  the 
Gentile:  "Alia  enim  fnit  Juda;orum  sub  Apostolis  ratio,  alia  est 
gentilium  conditio,  llli,  quia  jam  legis  et  Moysi  antiquissimum 
baptisma  fuerint  adepti,  in  nomine  quoque  Jcsu  Christi  erant 
baptizandi,  secundum  quod  in  Actis  Apostolorum  Petrus  ad  eos 
loquitur  et  dicit,  Paenitemini,  et  baptizelur  unusquinque  vedrum 
in  nomine  Domini  Jesu  Christi  in  remissionem  peccatorum. 
Jesu  Christi  mentionem  Petrus  facit,  non  quasi  Pater  omiteretur, 
sed  ut  Patri  quoque  Filius  adjuugeretur.    Denique  ubi  post  resur- 


CHANGE    OF    FORMULA.  175 

rectionem  a  Domino   Apostoli  ad  gentes   raittuntur    in   nomine 
Patris,  et  Filii,  et  Spiritus  Sancti  baptizare  gentiles  jubentur. 

"  The  condition  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  Gentiles  is  different. 
The  Jews,  because  they  had  already  received  the  most  ancient 
baptism  of  the  Law  and  of  Moses,  were  baptized  also  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  Peter  says.  Acts  2  :  38,  'Repent  and  be 
baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  into  the 
remission  of  sins.'  Peter  makes  mention  of  Jesus  Christ,  not  as 
if  the  Father  should  be  omitted,  but  that  the  Son  should  be  con- 
joined with  the  Father.  Finally,  when  after  the  resurrection  the 
Apostles  are  sent  by  the  Lord  to  the  nations,  they  are  commanded 
to  baptize  the  Gentiles  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Sqji, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  explanation  of  Cyprian  cannot  be  received,  because  it  does 
not  square  with  the  facts  of  the  case.  It  has  no  adequate  his- 
torical basis. 

Didymus  Alex.,  1660,  commenting  on  Acts  2  :  38,  sa\'s :  "  The 
Saviour  having  commanded  the  perfected  to  be  baptized  'into  the, 
name  of  the  Father,  and  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,'  some,  unwisely 
interpreting  the  Scriptures,  having  heard  Peter  exhorting  every 
one  to  be  baptized  (iv  rw  dvofian  too  Xpiarou)  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
imagine  the  one  equal  to  the  three  names.  But  the  Church,  be- 
lieving the  Trinity  indivisible  and  inseparable,  declares  the  Father 
to  be  of  the  Son,  and  the  Son  of  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  be  of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  So,  through  this  unit}^  {rbv 
^anrt'^uiiEvuv  elq  6vo;j.a  A/Jctrzoi),  xard  rijv  Tpcdda  jdaTrrH^effOac^  he  who  is 
baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ,  is  baptized  into  the  entire 
Trinity." 

There  are  insuperable  difficulties  (of  which  more  will  be  said 
hereafter)  in  the  way  of  such  interpretation. 

Hilary,  II,  538,  alluding  to  passages  of  Scripture  apparently 
contradictory,  or  capable  of  an  unscriptural  interpretation,  urges 
that  such  passages  of  Scripture  are  not  to  be  rejected  or  dises- 
teemed  by  us,  presenting  this  consideration  :  "  Ne  postremo  apos- 
toli reperiantur  in  criraine,  qui  baptizare  in  nomine  Patris,  et 
Filii,  et  Spiritus  Sancti,  jussi,  tantum  in  Jesu  nomine  baptizave- 
runt.  Lest,  finally,  the  Apostles  may  be  found  guilt^'^,  who,  having 
been  commanded  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  baptized  only  in  the  name  of 
Jesus."     Hilary  points  out  the  difficulty  which  arises  on  the  as- 


176  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

sumption  that  the  Apostles  were  commanded  to  baptize  ritually 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  by  reason  of 
the  fact,  that  they  never  did  so  baptize,  but  baptized  into  some- 
thing else;  but  he  suggests  no  solution  of  the  difficulty.  A  com- 
mentator on  Hilary  makes  the  following  suggestion  :  "  Baptismus 
in  nomine  Jesu  dici  possit,  qui  non  ut  prius  Joannes,  sed  Jesu 
Christi  auctoritate  institutus  sit,  quamvis  dandus  in  nomine  Patris, 
et  Filii,  et  Spiritus  Saucti — Baptism  may  be  said  to  be  in  the 
name  of  Jesus,  which  is  instituted,  not  as  the  former  of  John,  but 
by  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  although  administered  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Hol}^  Ghost." 
T^iis  interpretation  is  precluded  from  consideration  by  the  fact, 
that  its  idea  of  "authorit_y"  is  derived  from  "in  nomine,"  which 
is  an  erroneous  translation  of  eig  rd  ovtifj.a^  which  does  not  ad- 
mit of  the  idea  of  being  established  "  b}^  the  authority  "  of  any 
one. 

Origen  lY,  10.39:  The  Greek  of  Origen  is  wanting.  It  exists 
onl}'  in  a  Latin  translation.  He  says:  "  Perhaps,  also,  you  may 
ask  this :  Since  the  Lord  himself  said  to  his  disciples,  that  the}' 
should  '  baptize  all  nations  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  why  does  the  Apostle  here  use 
the  name  of  Christ  onl\%  in  baptism,  saying,  'Whosoever  of  us 
have  been  baptized  into  Christ,'  since  it  is  not  regarded  as  legiti- 
mate baptism  unless  under  the  name  of  the  Trinity?  But  see  the 
discretion  of  Paul,  since,  in  the  present  passage,  he  did  not  de- 
sire so  much  to  discuss  the  subject  of  baptism,  as  that  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  through  the  likeness  of  which  he  would,  also, 
persuade  us  that  we  ought  to  die  to  sin  and  be  buried  together 
with  Christ.  And  it  was  not  suitable  that  when  he  spake  of  death, 
that  He  should  mention  either  the  Father  or  the  Holy  Ghost. 
For  '  the  Word  was  made  flesh,'  and  properly,  where  the  flesh  is, 
there  death  is  treated  of.  Nor  was  it  proper  to  say,  '  Whosoever 
of  us  have  ])een  baptized  '  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  or  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  '  have  been  baptized  into  his  death.'  " 

This  interpretation  looks  in  the  direction  where  the  truth  lies, 
but  docs  not  fully  uncover  it.  It  does  indicate  an  essential  differ- 
ence lietween  sh  Xfittr-uv  and  e;'?  rd  wofia  tdo  lla-fio^,  xal  tou  T[i)u,  xal 
rou  Ihenrmroq  'Ayiou,  which  entirely  precludes  their  interchange  as 
equivalents.  The  former  phrase  indicates  the  second  Person  of 
the  Trinity,  and  points  to  his  distinctive  work  as  "  God  manifest 
in  the  Jlesh,"  and  its  fruits  toward  his  redeemed  people;  while  the 


CHANGE    OF    FORMULA.  177 

latter  phrase  indicates  the  Deity  simply  in  his  Trinity,  with  suck 
several  distinctive  relations  to  man  as  the  Scriptures  unfold. 

Until  the  whole  scheme  of  redemption  as  made  known  in  the 
Scriptures  is  confounded,  it  is  impossible  that  the  one  of  these 
baptisms  can  stand  for  the  other. 

Matthies  and  others. 

Matthies  (Baptismatis  Expositio, .  pp.  121-133)  presents  the 
facts  in  the  case  very  clearly.  "  The  Apostles  are  commanded  by 
Christ,  to  bind  bj'  baptism  everj'  one  about  to  embrace  the  Chris- 
tian religion  to  faith  into  God  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 
But  the  baptism  which  is  said  to  have  been  administered  by  the 
Apostles  nut  into  the  name  {in  nomen)  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  but  into  the  name  (in  nomen)  of  Christ,  seems  to 
o|3pose  the  very  command  of  Christ  (Acts  2  :  88 ;  8  :  12,  IG ;  10  :  48 ; 
19  :  3,  4,  5  ;  Rom.  6:3;  Gal.  3  :  27  ;  1  Cor.  1  :  13,  15  ;  cfr.  1  Cor. 
10  :  2).  .  .  .  Luke,  although  he  frequently  relates  the  administra- 
tion of  baptism  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  yet  never  mentions 
the  words  used  by  Christ  in  the  institution  of  baptism ;  nor  is  there 
less  silence  in  all  the  other,  books  of  the  New  Testament  respect- 
ing the  use  of  the  formula  of  the  Trinity  in  the  administration  of 
baptism.  Why  this  is,  very  man}'  conjectures  are  proposed,  which 
indeed  are  easy  of  suggestion,  but  which  are  very  far  from  being 
established  by  sound  arguments  derived  either  from  Scripture  or 
from  history.  Sacred  Scripture  clearly  teaches  us  that  the  Apos- 
tles, although  they  were  commanded  by  Christ  to  baptize  ('in 
triunum  deum ')  into  the  Triune  God,  nevertheless,  did  actually 
baptize  siq  ovo/xa  Xpc(Trou.  Were  the  Apostles  regardless  of  the 
command  of  Christ?  Or,  did  Christ  himself  hold  in  light  esteem 
his  own  commandment  ?  Very  many  who  have  treated  of  this 
subject  have  freel}'  inclined  to  the  one  view  or  the  other,  although 
there  is  no  evidence  by  which  it  can  be  proved  either  that  the 
Apostles  neglected  the  commands  of  Christ,  or  that  Christ  lightly 
esteemed  his-  own  teaching.  Since  it  is  necessary  that  we  liave 
faith  in  those  things  concerning  the  administration  of  baptism, 
which  are  related  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  we  cannot 
doubt,  but  that  the  Apostles  did  truly  baptize  {in  nomen  Christi 
sen  in  Christum)  into  the  name  of  Christ  or  into  Christ.  .  .  . 
From  those  things  stated  concerning  the  import  of  the  formula 
eiq  TO  ovo[xa  XpiffTou,  it  can  readily  be  seen,  how  it  could  happen 

12 


178  CHRISTTC    BAPTISM. 

that,  although  it  is  frequently  stated  in  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  that  the  Apostles  baptized  only  {in  nomen  Ghristi) 
into  the  name  of  Christ,  ^^et  from  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  bap- 
tism was  admiuistei-ed  (in  triunum  deuvi)  into  the  triune  God. 
Nor  did  the  Apostles  baptize  contrary  to  the  command  of  Christ, 
nor  did  the  ecclesiastical  Fathers  essentially  change  the  baptism 
of  the  Apostles,  but  the  same  idea  of  baptism  belongs  to  both. 
Christ,  to  state  the  whole  thing  briefly,  instituted  baptism  into 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  which  triune  God  is  manifested 
in  that  eternal  Logos  who  was  made  man  ;  but  the  Apostles  ad- 
ministered baptism  (in  eeternum  h^yov)  into  the  eternal  Logos, 
who  has  his  truth  in  the  triune  God,  or  in  the  idea  of  the  Trinity; 
if  you  regard  the  essence  of  each,  it  is  the  same." 

The  facts  are  well  stated  by  Matthies.  The  statement  of  the 
relation  between  the  eternal  Logos  and  the  Triune  God  is,  no 
doubt,  substantially  true.  But  because  that  is  true  of  the  eternal 
Logos,  and  not  of  the  eternal  Logon  '•'•made  man^'"  it  entirely  fails 
to  explain  and  to  unify  these  two  baptisms.  The  baptism  ad- 
ministered by  the  Apostles  was  not  into  the  eternal  Logos,  but 
"into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  and  "into  Christ."  Now, 
no  one  will  say,  that  there  is  not  an  amazing  difference  between 
"the  eternal  Logos  "  considered  simply  as  such,  and  "  the  eternal 
Logos  made  JleshJ^  It  is  just  because  of  this  difference,  qualify- 
ing him  to  become  "the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world,"  that  the  baptism  of  the  guilty  is  into  Him  = 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  not  "into  the  Father,"  nor  "into  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  neither  of  which  (whatever  their  divine  unity  with  the 
eternal  Logos),  is  "the  lamb  of  God  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  tvorld,^^  and,  in  the  fulness  of  time  "Christ  crucified''^  on 
Calvary.  Matthies  assumes  that  tlicre  must  be  not  only  absolute 
accord  between  these  baptisms,  but  unity  of  import.  He  as- 
sumes, also,  that  Matt.  28:  19  is  tlie  institution  of  and  formula 
for  ritual  baptism.  Both  these  assumi)tions  may  be  erroneous. 
They  both  need  to  be  proved.  We  may  always  assume  a  real 
harmou}'^  between  apparently  incongruous  statements  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  but  we  must  prove  and  not  assume  a  particular  explanation 
of  tlie  incongruity.  There  may  be  harmony  where  there  is  not 
sameness.  Tiiere  may  be  harmony  and  interchange  of  statement 
between  cause  and  effect;  while  tlie  attempt  to  prove,  tliat  the 
harmony  was  grounded  in  unity,  and  tliat  the  capability  of  inter- 
chan2;e  was  due  to  sameness  of  nature  would  be  a  great  ftiilure. 


CHANGE    OF    FORMULA.  179 

The  explanation  of  the  relation  between  these  baptisms,  while 
recognizing  that  wondrous  element  in  which  they  agree  (the 
eternal  Logos  present  in  both),  must  turn  on  that  in  which  they 
differ^  namely,  the  presence  in  one,  and  not  in  the  other,  of  the 
man  Jesus  who  dies,  and  whose  blood  baptism  "  cleanses  from 
all  sin."  And  just  in  this  great  difference  will  these  baptisms  be 
found  to  have  their  real  agreement  and  unification. 

Neander  (P.  and  T.,  275)  says  :  "Baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ 
is  equally  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

The  question  which  concerns  us  is  not.  Whether  these  two 
baptisms  have,  historically,  been  used  in  the  administration  of 
ritual  baptism  in  the  church,  but,  1.  Whether  they  were  so  used 
in  the  New  Testament  church ;  and  2.  Whether  they  do,  by  their 
terms,  express  the  same  or  an  equivalent  baptism.  Neander  does 
not  say  why  these  verbally  diverse  formulae  are  equal  to  each 
other ;  but  his  explanation  would  probably  be  in  substantial  ac- 
cord with  that  given  by  Matthies. 

Calvin,  Comm.  I,  Cor.  1:13,  speaks  on  this  point  with  charac- 
teristic penetration  and  force. 

"  It  is  asked:  What  it  is  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ? 
I  answer,  that  by  this  expression  it  is  not  simply  intimated  that 
baptism  is  founded  on  the  authority  of  Christ,  but  depends,  also, 
on  his  influence,  and  does,  in  a  manner,  consist  in  it ;  and,  in  fine, 
that  the  whole  effect  depends  on  this — that  the  name  of  Christ  is 
therein  invoked.  It  is  asked  further :  Why  it  is  that  Paul  says, 
that  the  Corinthians  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  while 
Christ  himself  commanded  (Matt.  28:  19)  the  Apostles  to  baptize 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  ?  I  answer,  that  in  baptism  the  first  thing  to  be  considered 
is,  that  God  the  Father,  by  planting  us  in  his  church  in  unmerited 
goodness,  receives  us  by  adoption  into  the  number  of  his  Sons. 
Secondl}',  As  we  cannot  have  any  connection  with  him  except  by 
means  of  reconciliation,  we  have  need  of  Christ  to  restore  us  to 
the  Father's  favor,  by  his  blood.  Thirdly,  As  we  are  b\'  baptism 
consecrated  to  God,  we  need  also  the  interposition  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  whose  office  it  is  to  make  us  new  creatures.  Nay,  farther, 
our  being  washed  in  the  blood  of  Christ  is  peculiarly'  his  work; 
but  as  we  do  not  obtain  the  mercy  of  the  Father,  or  the  grace  of 
the  Spirit,  otherwise  than  through  Christ  alone,  it  is  on  good 
grounds  that  we  speak  of  him  as  the  peculiar  object  in  view  in 


180  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

baptism,  and  more  particularly  inscribe  his  name  on  baptism.  At 
the  same  time  this  does  not  b^'  any  means  exclude  the  name  of 
the  Father  and  of  the  Spirit;  for  when  we  wish  to  sum  up  in 
short  compass  the  efficacy  of  baptism,  we  make  mention  of  the 
name  of  Christ  alone  ;  but  when  we  are  disposed  to  speak  with 
greater  minuteness,  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  that  of  the 
Spirit  require  to  be  expressly  introduced." 

This  explanation  of  Calvin  proceeds  on  a  basis  essentiall}'  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  any  other  ^-et  adduced.  Its  hinge  is  not  the 
Deity  of  Christ,  and  therefore  the  essential  unity  between  one 
person  of  the  triune  God  and  the  entire  Godhead,  but  it  is  that 
in  which  Christ  is  distinct,  nameh',  in  his  incarnation,  in  order  to 
redemption  and  reconciliation.  It  is  in  this  character  and  by  this 
work,  that  it  becomes  possible  for  the  guilty  to  be  baptized  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  "  into  Christ,"  and  thus  to  be  made  regenerate, 
to  receive  remission  of  sins,  to  be  clothed  with  righteousness,  and 
then,  and  thus,  to  be  made  meet  for  reconciliation  with  and  sub- 
jection unto  (=  baptism  into)  the  full  and  essential  Godhead, 
"Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." 

The  interpretation  of  Calvin  is  made  under  the  light  of  the 
scope  of  Scripture  teaching  rather  than  under  the  specific  guid- 
ance of  the  force  of  the  terms  entering  into  tlie  formula.  If  the 
latter  liad  been  full}'  apprehended  he  would  have  seen,  that  there 
was  no  need  nor  propriety  in  the  introduction  of  the  name  of 
the  Father,  or  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  into  a  baptism  which,  belonged 
to  the  distincHve  inork  of  Christ.  Baptism  "  into  Christ  "  makes 
meet  for  baptism  "  into  Father,  Son,  and  H0I3'  Ghost."  See  Cal- 
vin's "  Secondly." 

Prof.  J.  Addison  Alexander  (Comm.  Acts  8:12,  IG)  says :  "  The 
other  subject  of  iiis  preaching  was  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  i.  <?., 
all  denoted  by  these  names,  one  of  which  means  the  Saviour  of 
his  people  (Matt.  1  :  21),  and  the  other  their  Messiah,  or  Anointed 
Pro|)iiet,  Priest,  and  King.  Into  this  name,  ?".  p.,  into  union  with 
Christ  and  subjection  to  him,  in  all  these  cliaracters,  tlie  Samaritan 
believers  were  introduced  by  tiie  initiatory  rite  of  baptism,  which, 
unlike  that  of  Judaism,  was  administered  alike  to  both  men  and 
woiDtM).  ...  '  Into  the  name,'  i.  e.,  into  union  witli  him  and  sub- 
jection to  liim,  as  their  Sovereign  and  their  Saviour." 

Tlie  iiiter[)retation  tiuis  given  by  this  princely  scholar  admits, 
as  a  compLMidious  statement,  of  no  improvement.  The  spirit  of 
it  is  identical  witli  that  of  Calvin  ;  but  as  it  is  derived  not  from 


IMPORT    OF    FORMULA    BY    FORCE    OF    TERMS.  181 

the  light  of  general  truth,  but  from  the  specific  force  of  terms 
employed,  it  is  more  nicely  accurate  and  more  absolutely  true. 
And  the  harmony  of  both  with  the  twofold  baptism  of  Scripture, 
viz.,  the  primarj^  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
the  ulterior  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is,  that  the  former  baptism  is  causative  of 
the  latter  baptism. 

IMPORT    OF    FORMULA   BY    FORCE    OF    TERMS. 

The  results  of  this  Inquiry  teach:  1.  That  ££?,  with  /JaTrrj'Cw, 
points  to  its  regimen  as  complementary  to  the  idea  of  the  verb ; 
2.  That  the  regimen  of  this  preposition  is  the  element  (real  or 
ideal)  into  which  the  baptized  object  passes  without  I'eturn ;  3. 
That  such  phraseology  is  the  most  distinct  and  absolute  statement 
as  to  a  baptism  of  which  language  is  capable ;  4.  That  whether 
thecomplementof  the  verb  be  real  or  ideal  it  does  equally  express 
a  complete  change  of  condition  in  the  baptized  object,  the  general 
nature  of  which  as  penetrating,  pervading,  and  assimilating,  is 
indicated  by  the  verb,  and  the  specific  character  of  which  is  shown 
by  the  preposition  and  its  regimen,  whose  characteristic  always 
gives  character  to  the  baptism.  Guided  by  these  determined 
results,  the  formula  "  Baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  " 
can  only  mean  a  complete  change  of  condition  by  being  made 
fully  subject  to  the  distinctive  influence  which  characterizes  "  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  =  a  Sovereign  and  a  Saviour  from 
sin.  Whether  this  change  of  condition  be  real  or  ritual  depends 
upon  which  of  those  twofold  agencies,  the  Holy  Spirit  or  symbol 
water,  is  the  executive  of  the  baptism.  In  the  baptism  immedi- 
ately under  consideration,  it  is  a  ritual  service ;  the  condition, 
therefore,  expressed  in  the  formula  is  not  one  which  is  actually 
effected,  but  only  symbolly  exhibited. 

The  account  of  this  baptism  at  Samaria  has  claimed  a  more, 
special  and  detailed  consideration,  because  it  is  the  first  ritual 
baptism  clearly  stated  under  Christianity.  This  fulness  of  ex- 
amination will  enable  us  to  pass  over  others  more  briefly. 

I  only  now  add,  that  it  is  through  the  real  baptism  of  the  souls 
of  men  "into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  =  ^/ie  crucified  Re- 
deemer of  his  people,  that  they  become  qualified  for  that  ulterior 
baptism  into  the  only  living  and  true  God — the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost. 


182  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

RITUAL   BAPTISM   OF   THE    EUNUCH. 

Acts  8  :  35,  36,  38. 

'Qq  6e  E7ropevovT9  Kara  t^v  oSbv,  fjWov  eirl  ti  v6up  koi  <j)7/aiv  6  kvvovxoc'  'I<iov 
v6(i)p'  Ti  KuT^vEi  fis  ^anriadyvai. ; 

Kal  EKElevce  aTijvai  to  apfxa'  Koi  KaTE^rjaav  a/ncpd-Epoi.  e!f  to  iit^up,  ote  ^Duirnog 
Kol  6  EvvovxoC  Kal  k^aiTTiCEv  avTov  "Ore  6e  avE^rjoav  ek  tov  v^aTog,  TlvEVfia  Kvpiov 
^pnacE  TOV  ^I'knnrov' . 

"  And  preached  unto  him  Jesus."  .  .  . 

"And  as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  upon  some  water ;  and  the 
Eunuch  said,  See !  water;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"  .  .  . 

"  And  he  commanded  the  chariot  to  stand  still ;  and  they  alighted,  both, 
at  the  water,  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him." 

"  But  when  they  remounted  from  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught 
away  Philip ;  and  the  Eunuch  saw  hhn  no  more,  for  he  went  on  his  way 
rejoicing." 

THE    SOLE   TRUST   OF   THE   THEORISTS. 

This  is  the  solitary  case  under  Chi'istianity  to  which  appeal  is 
made  to  prove  the  dipping  into  water  theorj'. 

The  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  in  or  around  an  upper  room 
at  Jerusalem ;  the  baptism  of  Saul  in  a  chamber  at  Damascus ; 
the  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends  in  his  own  home  at 
Cassarea ;  the  baptism  of  L^'dia,  away  from  her  home  and  from 
change  of  raiment,  at  Philippi ;  the  baptism  of  the  Jailor,  at  mid- 
night, in  a  prison  ;  the  baptism  of  "the  twelve"  without  warning 
or  preparation  at  Ephesus ;  nor  any  other  ritual  baptism  under 
Christianity  (except  that  now  before  us)  has  presented  a  single 
circumstance  to  which  appeal  could  be  made,  even  by  despair,  to 
prove  a  dipping  into  water.  In  no  instance  do  those  crutches 
{river  and  much  water)  upon  which  the  theorj'  leans  in  the  bap- 
tism of  John,  appear  in  the  baptisms  of  Christianity'.  Whenever 
these  baptisms  ai'e  cited  against  the  theor3',  its  friends  are  com- 
pelled to  seize  the  oars  and  row  against  wind  and  tide,  argue 
against  time  and  circumstance  (as  well  as  the  true  meaning  of 
the  word),  to  save  their  dipping  from  hopeless  destruction. 

Carson. 

Dr.  Carson  has  given  this  case  special  attention.  He  saj'^s 
(pp.  128-140):  "I  have  written  some  hundreds  of  pages  concern- 


CARSON.  183 

ing  the  mode  of  this  ordinance,  yet  to  a  mind  thirsting  to  know 
the  will  of  God,  and  uninfluenced  by  prejudice,  this  passage  with- 
out comment  is,  in  ray  view,  amply  sufficient. 

"  The  man  who  can  read  it,  and  not  see  immersion  in  it,  must 
have  something  in  his  mind  unfavorable  to  the  investigation  of 
truth.  As  long  as  I  fear  God,  I  cannot,  for  all  the  kingdoms  of 
this  world,  resist  the  evidence  of  this  single  document.  Nay; 
had  I  no  more  conscience  than  Satan  himself,  I  could  not,  as  a 
scholar,  attempt  to  expel  immersion  from  this  account.  All  the 
ingenuity  of  all  the  critics  in  Europe  could  not  silence  the  evi- 
dence of  this  single  passage.  Amidst  the  most  violent  perversion 
that  it  can  sustain  on  the  rack,  it  will  still  cry  out  immersion, 
immersion .'" 

"  When  they  came  to  the  water,  instead  of  sending  down  one 
of  the  retinue  to  bring  up  a  little  water,  they  went  down  to  the 
water.  But  they  not  only  went  cfown  to  the  water;  they  went  into 
the  water.  It  is  not  only  said,  '  they  went  into  the  water,'  our 
attention  is  fixed  on  the  fact  that  they  both  went  into  the  water. 
Had  the  water  been  deep  enough  at  the  edge,  the  Eunuch  only 
might  have  been  in  the  water.  Now  this  determines  that  the 
preposition  e<<r  must  be  rendered  into  and  not  unto.'''' 

"  Their  return  is  called  a  coming  up  out  of  the  water.  This  is 
more  precise  than  the  account  of  our  Lord's  baptism.  There  it  is 
said.  He  came  up  from  the  water.  Here  it  is  out  of  the  water. 
I  am  far  from  denying  that  elq  sometimes  signifies  unto.  It  is  not 
of  itself,  therefore,  definite.  Elq  might  be  used  if  the  advance  was 
only  to  the  margin.  But  I  utterly  deny  any  such  indefiniteness 
in  hx.  I  say  it  always  signifies  out  of.  ^E/.  as  signifying  the  point 
of  departure  or  motion  from  one  point  to  another  is  more  definite 
than  fltTTo,  since  it  always  implies  that  the  point  of  departure  is 
within  the  object  and  not  without  it.  Fi'om  this  there  is  not  only 
no  exception,  but  there  is  no  color  of  exception." 

"  I  conclude,  then,  with  all  the  authority  of  demonstration,  that 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch  were  within  the  water  because  they  came 
out  of  it." 

The  above  is  a  condensed  statement  of  Dr.  Carson's  exposition 
of  this  baptism.  This  exposition  opens  with  the  declaration  that 
a  "  Satanic  conscience  "  must  be  appalled  by  an  attempt  to  repel 
the  evidence  of  this  document  for  "  immersion  "  (=  dipping  into 
water).  It  closes  with  a  "  demonstration  "  that  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch  were  ivithin  the  water,  because  they  came  out  of  it.     Dr. 


184  CHRISTIG    BAPTISM. 

Carson  does  not  laugh  (loud  enough  to  be  heard)  when  he  adduces 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch  ivithin  the  water,  as  "demonstrating"  that 
Philip  dipped  the  Eunuch  into  the  ivater.  Perhaps  he  would  do 
so  if  any  one  should  adduce  Ireland  (and  Dr.  Carson  upon  it) 
within  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  as  demonstrating  that  Dr.  Carson 
dij)jjed  Ireland  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  To  appeal  to  i^arcri'^uj  is 
to  appeal  to  a  broken  reed  :  1.  Because  fia-L-i'^u)  does  not  dip.  2. 
Because  "  into  water  "  is  taken  out  of  the  theory  and  not  out  of 
the  Bible. 

If  it  is  any  pleasure  to  Dr.  Carson  and  friends  to  put  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch  within  the  water,  we  assure  them  that  such  pleasure 
of  theirs  is  no  special  displeasure  to  us.  But  when  the}^  make  the 
water  "  shallow  at  the  edge,"  and  cause  the  parties  to  walk  out 
into  "  two  feet  nine  inches  "  depth,  in  order  "  to  make  it  conve- 
nient" for  Philip  to  dip  the  Eunuch  into  water  (or  so  much  as  the 
Eunuch  has  not  already,  himself,  put  under  water),  instead  of 
conforming  to  the  Scripture,  and  baptizing  him  "  with  water  into 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  then,  we  are  just  so  far  displeased 
as  we  ought  to  be  whenever  human  conceit  is  substituted  for 
divine  inspiration.  That  this  has  been  done  in  Dr.  Carson's  in- 
terpretation will  appear  by  a  detailed  consideration  of  all  the  ele- 
ments which  enter  into  a  solution  of  the  case. 

Some  Water. 

It  is  a  matter  of  vital  moment  to  the  friends  of  dipping  that 
they  should  show  that  this  "  some  water  "  was  suflScient  in  quan- 
tity to  admit  of  the  body  of  a  man  being  dipped  into  it.  Such 
proof  has  never  been  presented.  Such  proof  it  is  impossible  to 
present.  There  is  the  most  utter  absence  of  all  material  so  to  do. 
The  Eunuch  saw  "water;"  the  chariot  came  "upon  (i-'t)  some 
water;"  they  stepped  "to,  or  into,  this  water;"  the  Eunuch  was 
"  baptized  "  with  this  water ;  the}'  came  up  "  from,  or  out  of,  this 
water."  Such  statements  exhaust  all  that  is  said  about  the  water, 
and  there  is  nothing  about  adequacy  for  a  dipping. 

If  it  should  be  objected,  that  it  is  not  aaid  tliat  the  baptism  was 
"  with  water,"  I  answer :  Although  it  is  not  so  stated  here,  it  is 
so  stated  elsewhere,  and  always  by  Luke,  the  writer  of  this  pas- 
sage, with  the  simple  instrumental  Dative,  vHari^  and  never  by  ek 
vf^wp,  and  consequently  the  statement  is  here,  by  ellipsis,  just  as 
certainly  as  if  it  had  been  expressed,  "  with  water." 


THE    CHARIOT.  185 

Other  reasons  join  with  these  to  show,  that  this  water  was  small 
in  quantity.  Among  these  are:  1.  The  expression  T\vdwp-j  "not 
a  certain  water,  which  might  seem  to  mean  a  well-known  lake  or 
stream,  of  which  the  region  seems  to  have  been  wholly  destitute, 
but,  as  the  Greek  words  properly  denote,  some  water ;  the  indefi- 
nite expression  (like  that  in  5  :  2)  suggesting  naturally,  the  idea 
of  a  small  degree  or  quantity."  (Alexander  zn  Zoc.)  2.  Tlie  nature 
of  the  country  through  which  they  were  passing;  "this  is  desert." 
Whether  "  desert "  apply  to  the  region  or  to  the  road,  it  shows  a 
want  of  water.  "  Arrian  speaks  of  a  road  desert  for  want  of 
water."  3.  The  Eunuch  was  surprised  to  see  water,  as  shown  by 
his  exclamation  "See!  water,"  "where  it  might  have  been  least 
expected."  (Alexander.)  4.  The  promptitude  and  urgenc}'^  for 
baptism  ;  implying  that  if  this  spot  should  be  jiassed  by  no  other 
such  spot  might  be  found  on  the  road.  Everything  said  and  im- 
plied points  to  a  limited  quantity  of  water.  There  is  nothing 
which  indicates  "two  feet  nine  inches  "  at  the  edge  or  anywhere 
else. 

The  Chariot. 

Dr.  Carson  has  nothing  to  say  of  the  chariot  as  an  element  to 
be  considered  as  explanatory  of  the  terms  entering  into  this  bap- 
tism. It  is  an  element  which  appears  in  no  other  New  Testament 
baptism.  It  is  the  determining  interpi'etative  element  in  impor- 
tant phraseology  of  this  baptism  in  which  it  does  appear.  These 
are  the  facts  :  1.  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  riding  in  a  chariot  {rjkdov 
im  z\  odwp)  "  came  upon  some  water,"  and  there  the  chariot  was 
stopped.  The  position  of  the  chariot  in  relation  to  the  water  is 
of  vital  importance.  This  must,  primarily,  be  determined  by  inl. 
The  chariot  stands  wherever  i-]  r]  uSiup  puts  it.  This  may  be  either 
upon,  over,  the  water  (the  wheels  in  the  water  of  a  streamlet  run- 
ning across  the  I'oad),  or  immediately  adjacent  to  the  water.  Winer 
says,  ^7z\  means  upon,  above,  on  the  shore  ;  beside,  near,  in  local 
sense  is  not  established.  2.  The  movement  of  the  parties  in  the 
chariot.  This  is  expressed  by  xarijSrjffav.  What  is  the  impoi't  of 
this  word  ?  A  few  cases  closely  parallel  will  sufficiently  answer 
this  question :  Matt.  14  :  29,  "  Peter  having  stepped  down  (y.arai3dq) 
from  the  boat  walked  {Im  rd  udara)  upon  the  water."  The  walking 
(nepceTzdrrjffev)  is  expressed  by  another  word.  Xen.  Eq.  11,  7,  uses 
this  word  to  express  the  dismounting  from  a  horse  (tnnoq  xara^aivs. 
rat).  Judges  4:15  (Septuagint),  "And  Sisera  (zaT^/3ij)  stepped 
down  from  his  chariot." 


186  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

In  all  these  cases  xarajSatvw  is  used  to  express  precisely  the  same 
act  which  it  was  necessary,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  Philip 
and  the  Eunuch  should  do,  name]}',  "  step  down"  from  the  chariot. 
Now,  whether  it  be  due  to  a  "  Satanic  conscience  "  or  not,  we 
say,  that  xarifirjffav  expresses  neither  more  nor  less  than  that  the 
occupaii''s  of  the  chariot  stepped  down  out  of  it.  The  interpreta- 
tion which  would  make  this  word  express  a  walk  from  "  a  shallow 
edge  down  a  declining  channel  into  slowly  deepening  water  "  may 
be  worth  preserving  as  a  curiosity,  but  its  fitness  is  only  for  a 
museum  of  abnormal  developments. 

Went  Down  into  the  Water. 

The  position  of  the  chariot  may,  farther,  be  determined  by  the 
statement  xuTiiirjfjav  ei'c  odiup^  "they  stepped  down  to  or  into  the 
water."  This  additional  fact  is  in  the  most  absolute  accord  with 
the  declaration,  that  the  chariot  came  and  stopped  (fVi  tj  ud(op) 
" upon,  over.,  or  in  immediate  contiguity  with .,some  water."  Whether 
the  chariot  wheels  were  in  the  water  or  on  the  edge  of  the  water, 
they  who  "  stepped  down  "  must  step  down  "  to  or  into  the  water." 
But  this  fact,  again,  confirms  what  ever^'thing  points  to,  namely, 
the  limited  quantity  of  the  water.  The  implication  is,  if  they 
stepped  down  "  into  the  water  "  that  it  was  so  trifling  in  depth  as 
to  make  it  unnecessary  to  change  tlie  position  of  the  chariot; 
certainly  no  one  would  step  down  out  of  a  chariot  into  water  two 
feet  nine  inches  in  depth  ;  which  they  must  have  done,  if  at  all, 
at  one  step,  for  there  is  no  second  step  in  the  record  be^^ond  that 
which  brought  them  down  out  of  the  chariot.  Going  down,  step 
by  step,  from  shallower  into  deeper  water,  is  the  purest  fiction. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  prove  that  xari^ir^nw^  eli;  to  vliwp  does  not  neces- 
sarily require  the  stepping  down  into  the  water,  because  this  is 
admitted  by  Dr.  Carson  ;  and,  farther,  because  I  do  not  mean  to 
insist  upon  any  such  point.  I  cheerfully  admit  that  the3'^  may 
have  stepped  down  from  the  chariot  into  the  water  under  circum- 
stances above  indicated,  which  are  the  farthest  possible  removed 
from  what  the  theory  desires  and  demands.  Tliat  xar^^Jr/ffav  er?  to 
v8ojp  does  not  require  entrance  into  the  water  is  clearly  established 
by  Luke  8  :  23  (zarc/5r;  XaiXcul'  avipjiu  ei't  rryv  X(ti\'riv).  "  a  storm  of  wind 
came  down"  {not)  ^Hrxto  the  lake."  The  proof  is  no  less  clear 
that  when  xarafiaivw  carries  down  into  water,  it  does  not  induce  a 
walking  "from  shallower  into  deeper  water."   So  John  5:4:  "  An 


CAME    UP.  187 

angel  (xarilSacvev)  went  down  into  the  pool ;  "  but  no  one,  I  presume, 
ever  imagined  that  this  taught,  that  "the  angel  walked  from  the 
water  shallow  at  the  edge  down,  step  by  step,  into  deeper  water." 
In  the  same  verse  it  is  said,  "  Whosoever  first  (Jix^aq)  stepped  in 
was  made  whole."  Many  have  written  touching  this  troubled 
water  and  its  healing,  but  I  never  heard  of  any  one  who  supposed 
that  in^aivu)  required  a  second  step  to  be  taken  within  the  water. 
This  phase  of  the  argument  for  a  dipping  (which  is  the  only 
novelty  deduced  from  this  transaction)  may  be  dismissed  without 
fear  of  awakening  qualms  in  any  conscience,  even  though  it  should 
be  much  more  sensitive  than  "  that  of  Satan." 


Game  Up. 

The  movement  of  Philip  will  not  receive  just  consideration 
unless  we  look  at  the  reverse  movement  indicated  by  (dvijSrjCTav) 
"they  came  uj).^^  Those  who  would  "order  the  angel  Gabriel  to 
school "  if  he  should  question  that  jSanTc'^co  means  to  dip,  affirm 
that  this  movement  is  "the  walking  up  out  of  deeper  water  into 
shallower  water  at  the  edge."  Others,  who  prefer  the  anathema 
which  brands  with  a  "Satanic  conscience"  (when  such  conscience 
brings  into  school  fellowship  with  Gabriel)  think,  that  if  xaziiSr^ffav 
means  to  step  down,  avifi-qaav  must  mean  to  step  up.  This  conclu- 
sion, however  obvious,  from  the  verb  being  the  same  in  both 
cases,  and  the  compounding  preposition  being  in  the  one  case 
"  down  "  and  in  the  other  "  it;?,"  does  not  rest  merely  upon  the 
verb  and  its  composition,  but  upon  established  usage,  as  shown 
by  the  following  references:  Josephus  (12  :  4,  3)  uses  this  word 
(dvai3rjvat)  to  express  the  mounting  or  stepping  up  into  a  chariot — 
"  Ptolemy  desired  him  to  step  up  into  his  chariot."  Homer, 
Herodotus,  Plato,  Xenophon,  use  this  same  word  to  express  the 
mounting  or  stepping  up  upon  a  vessel,  a  camel,  a  staging,  a 
horse,  etc.  And  in  this  very  chapter  we  have  dvafid>ra  (v.  31) 
used  to  express  the  stepping  up  by  Philip  into  the  chariot  of  the 
Eunuch,  as  Joseph  stepped  up  into  the  chariot  of  Ptolemy.  Thus, 
as  it  is  in  express  evidence  that  ava^aivu)  takes  Philip  up  into  the 
chariot,  so  the  evidence  is  clear  for  xara/5ajVa»  to  bring  him  down 
from  the  chariot.  But  Professor  Hackett  objects,  sajnng  "the 
Eunuch  only,  returned  to  the  chariot."  This,  however,  is  a  mis- 
take. The  Scripture  says,  the  Eunuch,  only,  pursued  his  journey 
in  the  chariot;  but  it  does  not  say,  "the  Eunuch,  only,  returned 


188  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

to  the  chariot."  If  the  Eunuch  dismounted  from  the  chariot  and 
afterward  pursued  his  journey  in  the  chariot,  he  must  have  re- 
mounted irto  the  chariot.  Now,  this  dismounting  is  either  not 
expressed  at  all  or  it  is  expressed  by  xari[iri<7av ;  and  if  by  this 
word,  then  it  includes  Philip,  for  it  is  plural ;  so,  the  remounting 
of  the  Eunuch  is  either  not  expressed  at  all,  or  it  is  expressed  b}'^ 
avi^T}(Tav'^  and  in  that  case  it,  again,  includes  Philip,  for  the  verb 
is  plural.  If  it  be  asked.  Why  did  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  wait 
until  Philip  had  gone  up  into  the  chariot  before  He  carried  him 
away  ?  I  answer  by  asking.  Why  did  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  wait 
until  he  "  came  up  out  of  the  water  "  ?  Why  not  carry  Philip 
away  out  of  a  chariot,  as  well  as  carry  away  Elijah  in  a  chariot? 
The  case  stands  thus  :  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  came  in  a  chariot 
upon  some  water ;  they  dismounted  from  the  chariot,  stepping 
down  at  or  into  the  water ;  a  word  is  used  which  is  employed 
both  by  Greeks  and  Jews  to  express  stepping  down  from  a  chariot, 
and  we  say  it  is  so  used  here  ;  but  the  friends  of  a  dipping  say: 
"  It  is  not  so  used,  it  is  used  to  express  '  walking  down  from  shal- 
lower into  deeper  water  '  "  (not  a  word  of  which  appears  in  Scrip- 
ture) "  and  the  dismounting  is  not  expressed  at  all."  Again  :  it 
is  admitted  that  the  Eunuch  did  remount  into  his  chariot,  and  a 
word  is  used  which  is  employed  by  Greeks  and  Jews  to  express 
mounting  up  into  a  chariot,  and  which  is  employed  in  this  same 
narrative  to  express  Philip's  mounting  up  into  the  chariot  with 
the  Eunuch,  and  which  we  sa}^  is  here,  again,  employed  to  ex- 
press the  remounting  of  the  Eunuch  (including  Philip,  the  verb 
being  plural)  into  the  chariot  from  which  he  had  dismounted;  but 
the  friends  of  dipping  interpose  and  say,  "  No ;  the  word  means 
to  walk  back  again  from  deeper  water  into  shallower  "  (making 
an  absolute  addition  to  Scripture),  "  and  there  is  nothing  to  ex- 
press the  remounting  of  the  Eunuch."  Which  interpretation  has 
the  greatest  appearance  of  verisimilitude,  that  of  those  who,  like 
Dr.  Carson,  "thirst  to  know  the  will  of  God,"  or  that  of  those 
who  "  have  no  more  conscience  than  Satan  himself,"  the  thought- 
ful will  determine. 

Baptized  Him. 

Professor  Ripley  complains  that  Professor  Stuart  argues  against 
immersion  based  on  "  going  down  into  the  water,"  and  sa3's, 
"  going  down  into  the  water  is  no  jDart  of  the  baptism."  This 
position  is  at  the   expense  of  the  postulation  which   requires. 


GOING    DOWN    INTO    THE    WATER.  189 

1.  That  the  whole  and  not  the  part  of  an  object  must  be  baptized  ; 

2.  Self-baptism  is  not  Christian  baptism  ;  a  duly  qualified  minister 
must  be  the  baptizer ;  3.  "  To  modif}^  a  command  of  God  for  the 
sake  of  convenience  is  rebellion."  If  the  Eunuch  "baptized"  one 
half  of  his  body  he  had  no  authority  to  do  it.  If  Philip  "bap- 
tized" only  so  much  of  the  body  of  the  Eunuch  as  he  left  un- 
covered by  "walking  into  the  water,"  then  he  did  not  baptize 
"the  whole,"  but  a  part  only.  The  walking  into  the  water  is  not 
claimed  to  be  a  divine  command,  but  a  human  addition  to  avoid 
a  very  great  inconvenience.  The  walking  into  the  water  by  the 
Eunuch  is,  also,  a  purely  human  addition. 

The  language  of  Scripture,  unquestionably,  may  express  step- 
ping down  into  the  water,  and  just  as  unquestionably  this  may 
have  been  due  to  the  position  of  the  chariot  when  suddenly 
arrested,  and  because  the  limited  quantity  of  water  made  such 
action  a  matter  of  indifference. 

The  assumption  that  the  baptism  of  a  person  standing  in  water 
necessitates  a  dipping  into  water  is  an  assumption  "  as  unstable 
as  water."  It  is  certain,  that  [ia-zi'lu)  does  not  mean  to  dip.  It 
is  certain,  that  Greek  baptisms  without  number  were  effected  by 
a  fluid  without  a  fluid  covering.  It  is  certain,  that  early  Christian 
writers  represent  baptism  as  effected  in  a  variety  of  ways,  and, 
among  others,  by  stepping  into  water  without  being  dipped  into 
it.  Thus  Dionysius  Alexandrinus  (708),  declares,  that  the  pool 
of  Bethesda  was  {ehwv  [ia^r if! p.aroq)  the  image  of  baptism,- not  be- 
cause one  was  dipped  into  the  water,  but  because  he  stej^ped  into 
it  and  was  healed.  So  Ambrose  (III,  426)  says :  "  Habes  quar- 
tum  genus  baptismatis  in  piscina — Thou  hast  a  fourth  kind  of 
baptism  in  the  pool  (Bethesda)."  These  writers  neither  believed 
that  a  dipping  into  water  was  necessary  to  a  baptism,  nor  effected 
a  baptism  at  all.  They  believed  that  he  who  stepped  into  the 
troubled  water  of  Bethesda  was  ba[)tized,  not  because  "  the  hody 
was  immersed  after  the  Jewish  manner;  namely,  by  walking  into 
the  water  to  the  proper  depth,  and  then  sinking  down  till  the 
whole  body  was  immersed"  (Conant,  58),  but  because  the  water 
had  the  power  of  healing  by  stepping  into  it,  just  as  they  believed 
that  the  water  of  Christian  baptism,  impregnated  by  the  Spirit, 
had  power  to  heal  the  soul,  when  applied  to  the  body  b}^  them. 
It  is  so  certain  that  baptism  may  be  without  covering  the  body 
in  water,  that  Morell  frankly  admits  that  profuse  superfusiou  is 
baptism.     Fuller  admits  it  in  the  case  of  the  altar  on  Carmel. 


190  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

And  Professor  Arnold  (admitting  that  it  is  the  practice,  more  or 
less  frequently,  in  the  Eastern  Churches,  to  baptize  one  when  in 
the  water  by  pouring  water  from  the  hand  upon  the  head)  says, 
the  lack  of  a  covering  in  such  case  is  but  "  a  punctilio  "(!).  As 
we  are  ready  to  admit,  that  the  Eunuch  may  have  stepped  down 
from  the  chariot  into  the  water,  will  not  Prof.  Arnold  and  friends 
admit,  that  water  may  have  been  poured  from  the  hand  of  Philip 
upon  his  head,  and  being  so  "  baptized "  any  one  who  should 
complain  of  a  lack  of  covering  in  water,  must  be  condemned  as 
standing  on  "a  punctilio"?  It  is  as  certain  as  anything  within 
the  range  of  human  knowledge,  that  baptisms  are  freely  spoken 
of  by  early  Christian  writers  without  the  slightest  regard  to  the 
dipping  or  covering  of  the  baptized  object  (see  Judaic  Baptism). 
We  conclude,  therefore,  with  Prof.  Ripley,  that  the  stepping 
down  into  the  water  was  no  part  of  the  baptism,  and  taking  the 
pouring  or  the  sprinkling  of  Professor  Arnold  (without  the 
"punctilio  "),  we  say  with  Luke,  that  the  Eunuch  was  baptized 
^'"with  water"  (S^arj),  and  not  into  water  (sk  udcop),  but  "into  the 
Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  The  baptizer  was  the  same  Philip 
who  had  just  baptized  the  Samaritans  "  into  the  Name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus ; "  and  the  historian  is  the  same  who  expresses  the 
water  used  in  baptism  (whether  in  Gospel  or  in  Acts)  by  udarc^ 
which  precludes  a  dipping  into  water;  and  to  say  that  the  Eunuch 
was  baptized  in  any  other  way  than  "  uduTc  £i?  rd  ovoim  zoo  Kupioo 
Utjgou^  with  water  into  the  name  of  the  lord  jesus,"  is  to  con- 
tradict the  word  of  God. 

'EK. 

Dr.  Carson  insists,  "  that  u  has  no  indefiniteness  in  its  mean- 
ing. It  always  signifies  out  of.  It  always  begins  at  a  point 
witliin,  and  not  without,  the  place  of  departure.  To  this  there  is 
no  exception  and  no  color  of  exception."  For  this  reason  he 
insists  that  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  must  have  been  witliin  tlie 
water,  and,  therefore.,  the  Eunuch  was  dipped  into  water.  This 
has  already  been  shown  to  be  a  non  sequitur ;  but  as  another 
exhibition  of  that  error  of  "one  mcaniug  and  but  one  meaning" 
so  characteristic  of  the  theory,  it  may  be  well  to  inquire  of  usage 
as  to  this  unvarying  meaning. 

A  quotation  from  Sir  William  Hamilton  (Classic  Baptism,  pp. 
23,  24)  was  given  to  show,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  cast-iron  definit- 
ism  in  i3anTi!^uj  was  in  conflict  with  the  laws  of  language.     The 


'EK.  191 

same  doctrine  now  urged  for  h  is  also  shown  to  be  at  war  with 
language  development  as  stated  by  Marsh  (Origin  and  History 
of  the  English  Language) :  "  So,  too,  he  refutes  a  current  notion, 
that  words  individually  and  independently  of  syntactical  rela- 
tions, and  of  phraseological  combinations,  have  one  or  more  in- 
herent, fixed  and  limited  meanings,  which  are  capable  of  logical 
definition.  Words  live  and  breathe  only  in  mutual  combination 
and  interdependence  with  other  words." 

The  correctness  of  this  statement  will  be  manifest  by  a  limited 
exhibition  of  the  usage  of  this  preposition. 

Harrison  (Professor  in  the  University  of  Virginia)  has  written 
a  standard  work  on  the  Greek  prepositions.  His  view  of  the 
meaning  of  this  preposition  {b.)  is  thus  stated : 

"  1.  Out,  without;  that  is  on  the  outside. 

"  2.  Out  of,  from  out;  =ont  -f  motion  from.  a.  Of  space;  out 
of;  from  out.     h.  Of  a  number  of  objects;  out  of,  from  (out). 

c.  Of  origin,  parentage,  source,  cause,  agent,  material;  of,  from. 

d.  Of  that  from  which  an  action,  motion,  event,  etc.,  begins ; 
from,:  (1.)  Of  space,  and  generally  ;  from.  (2.)  Of  time;  from,. 
(3.)  Of  the  point  of  attachment ;  from.  (4.)  Of  the  space  to 
which  an  object  is  referred  for  its  position  ;  on,  in.'''' 

Jelf  (§  621).  Primary  meaning,  out,  opposed  to  iv,  in. 

Ktihner  (Gram.,  §  288)  gives  substantially  the  same  view :  "  1. 
In  a  local  relation  :  a.  removal  either  from  within  a  place  or 
object,  or  from  immediate  participation  or  connection  with  a 
place  or  object,  with  verbs  of  motion  ;  b.  distance  with  A'^erbs  of 
rest:  without,  beyond;  2.  Of  time,  immediate  outgoing,  develop- 
ment, or  succession  ;  3.  In  a  causal  and  figurative  sense :  a.  Of 
origin;  b.  Of  the  whole  in  relation  to  its  parts;  c.  Of  the  author; 
d.  the  occasion  or  cause;  e.  the  material;  f.  the  means  and  in- 
strument; g.  conformity.''^ 

Winer  (366)  makes  the  original  meaning  of  ix  issuing  from 
within.  He  says,  it  is  antithetic  to  e^c.  Harrison  says,  "  it  is 
just  the  opposite  of  iv."  Jelf  and  Kiihner  make  the  same  state- 
ment. Harrison  farther  says :  "  The  common  signification  of  t<, 
not  in  composition,  is  out  of,  from  out,  with  the  idea  of  proceed- 
ing from  out  of  a  circumscribed  space.  This  meaning,  being  due 
partly  to  the  action  or  motion  of  which  it  is  the  qualification,  is 
not  to  be  considered  as  simple  and  proper  to  tx;  the  sense  con- 
tained in  the  preposition  itself  is  no  more  than  that  of  out,  with- 
out.]^    While  all  of  these  grammarians  recognize  ix  as  related  to 


192  CHRIvSTIC    BAPTISM. 

movement  beginning  within  circumscribed  space,  none  of  them 
consider  depth  as  entering  into  the  idea  of  this  preposition. 
The}'  all  recognize  action  proceeding  from,  the  surface  of  any 
object,  or  frorrl  within  any  circumscribed  space  (without  penetra- 
tion) as  fully  meeting  the  demand  of  this  preposition. 

That  t/.  is  used  where  there  is  neither  depth  nor  superficial 
withinness,  Harrison  gives  the  following  among  other  evidences : 
"  1.  The  derivative  i^u)^without,i\\Q  opposite  of  within;  2.  t/.xaOsudetv^ 
to  sleep  out  of  doors  ;  3.  :ra?c  iy.y.elij.evix;^  a  child  lying  out,  exposed; 
4.  h.ylti(Tai  ri^c  ttwAew?,  to  shut  out  from  the  city ;  5.  ixXsinetv,  to 
leave  out;  6.  h  fteXiwv  ehm,  to  be  out  of  the  reach  of  darts.  .  .  . 
h  with  the  genitive  case  occurs  in  some  instances  with  the  pri- 
mary and  simple  meaning  vnthout,  out:  e.g..,  ix  xarcvod  xariOr/x',  I 
deposited  the  weapons  out  of,  without  the  smoke  ;  that  is,  on  the 
outside  with  respect  to  the  smoke.  Odys.  XIX,  7  ;  tx  rd^oo  ponaroq, 
a  foot  soldier  out  of  bowshot.  Xen.  Anab.  Ill,  3,  15 ;  that  is, 
without,  on  the  outside,  with  respect  to  a  bowshot ;  ix  rod  idaou, 
sat  down  out  from  their  midst.  Herod.  Ill,  83  ;  out,  on  the  out- 
side, in  respect  to  the  midst  of  them.  The  compound  ixnodwv, 
out,  or  without,  with  respect  to  the  feet,  belongs  here  together 
with  a  number  besides  in  which  ix  retains  its  proper  sense,  on 
which  the  genitive  depends." 

This  doctrine  that  ix  signifies  out,  without,  simply,  and  also 
proceeding  from  withina  boundar}'  line,  or  from  superficial  con- 
tact, together  with  other  derived  and  related  meanings,  is  sus- 
tained by  Scripture  usage :  Matt.  27  :  38,  "  Two  thieves  were  cru- 
cified with  him,  one  (ix  ds^tdji^)  out  from  the  right,  and  one  (i^ 
eucuvo/uo'/)  out  from  the  left."  Here  we  have  the  meaning  "  o?/<," 
with  respect  to  the  right,  "  out,"  with  respect  to  the  left,  without 
any  antecedent  withinness.  1  John  2:  19,  "They  went  (iC  -^fiwv) 
out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  (e^  tj/jlwv)  of  us."  Here  is  a  di- 
versity of  usage  in  the  same  sentence.  In  the  first  case,  there  is 
reference  to  position  within  a  company  of  persons  and  movement 
thence  carrying  without  the  company  ;  in  the  second  case,  there 
is  no  reference  to  position  or  movement,  but  to  unity  of  character 
and  continued  sympathy  as  a  consequence.  A  parallel  passage  is 
found  in  I  Maccab.,  XIII,  49,  "But  they  who  were  (ix  r^c  «V«?) 
of  the  citadel  in  Jerusalem  were  hindered  (ixTropeuzffOuc)  from 
going  out."  The  first  use  of  ix  has  lost  all  idea  of  separation 
and  expresses  belonging  to,  while  the  second  ix  (in  composition) 
turns  wholly  on  the  idea  of  separation.     So,  in  Herodotus  I,  62, 


INNESS    INAPPRECIABLE.  193 

"Those  Athenians  who  were  (h.  aazeoq)  of  the  city."  And 
Josephus  XIII,  2,  1,  "  The  impious  and  deserters  {h  ri^? 
SLxpoTtdksajq)  of  (=  belonging  to)  the  citadel,  feared  greatly." 
Another  usage  is  shown  in  Matt.  12  :  33,  "A  tree  is  known  {Ix  rou 
xapnou)  by  means  of  its  fruit."  A  similar  usage,  with  one  diverse, 
is  seen  in  Rev.  9: 18,  19,  "And  out  of  {Ix)  their  mouths  issued 
fire,  and  smoke,  and  brimstone.  The  third  part  of  men  were 
killed  ((S-o)  by  these  three,  namely  (tz  ron  -Kupdq)^  by  means  of  the 
fire,  and  (ix  too  xamou)  by  means  of  the  smoke,  and  {U  rob  Oaiou) 
by  means  of  the  brimstone,  which  issued  (kx)  out  of  their  mouths." 
Here,  in  the  same  sentence  h  represents  both  agency  and  move- 
ment, beginning  at  a  point  indefinitely  deep  within  the  mouth. 

Inness  inappreciable ;  superficial ;  no  contact. 

Luke  1  :  38,  "  And  began  to  wash  his  feet  with  tears  and 
Q^i/xaffffs)  wiped  them  off  with  the  hairs  of  her  head  ;"  John 
11  :  2,  "Anointed  the  Lord  with  ointment,  and  (hp-d^atra)  wiped 
off  his  feet  with  her  hair;"  Matt.  10: 14,  "  When  ye  depart  out 
of  that  house  or  city  Qxrivd^are)  shake  off  the  dust  of  your 
feet ;"  John  6  :  37,  "  And  him  that  cometh  (■n:pd<;)  to  me,  I  will  in 
nowise  {hjSdXw)  cast  out ;^^  Matt.  12:13,  "He  said  (k'xretvov) 
stretch  out  thy  hand.  And  (i^irsci's)  he  stretched  it  om^;"  Acts 
27  :  32,  "  Then  the  soldiers  cut  off  the  ropes  of  the  boat,  and  let 
her  (ixne(7sl>)  fall  off:' 

In  these  passages  we  have  dust  shaken  off  from,  and  tears  and 
ointment  wiped  off  from  the  feet.  Does  the  shaking  or  wiping, 
in  such  cases,  begin  within  the  feet  ?  When  the  hand  is  stretched 
out  from  the  body,  within  what  does  the  movement  begin  ?  The 
sinner  is  invited  to  come  to  Jesus ;  could  the  casting  out  of  such 
a  one  begin  at  a  point  within  Jesus  to  which  the  sinner  had 
never  attained  ? 

The  rope  which  holds  a  boat,  not  within  a  vessel  nor  in  contact 
with  a  vessel  but  floating  in  the  water,  is  cut,  and  it  falls  off, 
floating  away.  Does  this  floating  movement  begin  at  a  point 
within  the  vessel?  Prof.  Hackett  (Comm.)  says,  "The  ropes  of 
the  boat  which  fastened  it  to  the  vessel ;  not  those  by  which  they 
were  lowering  it,  as  that  was  already  done ;  let  it  fall  off  {i.  e., 
from  the  side  or  stern  of  the  vessel),  go  adrift." 

This  justly  esteemed  scholar  {primus  inter  pares  from  earliest 

13 


194  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

student  life  it  gives  me  pleasure  as  a  fellow-student  to  testify) 
knows  nothing  of  the  absolutism  of  Dr.  Carson's  doctrine. 

As  man}^  of  these  examples  present  the  preposition  in  compo- 
sition it  ma}'^  be  well  to  adduce  others  of  simple  form. 

Acts  28 :  3-5,  "  There  came  a  viper  (h  r^?  O^p/^rjc)  out  of  the 
heat  and  fastened  on  his  hand.  And  when  the  barbarians  saw 
the  venomous  beast  hang  (cz  t^c  x^<-po<^)  off  from  his  hand.  .  .  . 
And  he  {amnivd^a!;)  shook  off  the  beast  into  the  fire." 

Prof.  Hackett  (Comm.),  sa^'S,  "  ^z  t^?  Oip/j.y}'^,  from  the  heat, 
the  effect  of  it.  .  .  .  This  is  the  common  view  of  the  expression, 
to  which  De  Wette  also  adheres.  It  may  also  mean  from  the 
heat,  the  place  of  it,  as  explained  by  Winer,  Meyer,  and  others ; 
h  is  kept  nearer  in  this  wa}'  to  its  ordinary  force.  .  .  .  Ix  t^? 
yjtpbc^  from  his  hand,  to  which  it  clung  by  its  mouth." 

This  case  of  the  viper  all  can  understand.  Whether  it  had 
fastened  on  his  hand  by  coiling  around  it,  or  by  a  tooth  struck 
into  it,  is  a  matter  of  no  conseqence.  If  Dr.  Carson  is  satisfied 
that  the  motion  of  the  viper's  fall  began  within  the  hand  because 
a  tooth  may  have  been  stuck  into  the  flesh,  we  will  make  no 
earnest  objection.  He  will  no  doubt  in  turn  admit,  if  the  toe  of 
the  sandal  of  Philip  or  the  Eunuch  touched  the  water's  edge,  it 
will  justify  the  statement  that  the  action  of  mounting  up  into  the 
chariot  began  within  the  water. 

Acts  12:7,  "And  his  chains  (i^iTzerrov)  fell  off  (ix  rib'^  y-^P^''^) 
from  his  hands." 

Prof.  Hackett  translates,  "  His  chains  fell  off  from  his  hands 
or  wrists.  They  were  fastened  to  the  wrist  in  the  Roman  mode." 
The  Baptist  Version  translates,  "  His  chains  fell  off  from  his 
hands."  In  a  note,  it  is  said,  ix  rwv  ysipCov,  not  out  of,  but  from 
his  hands.  They  could  not  have  fallen  out  of,  unless  he  had  held 
them  in  his  hands." 

We  have  then,  here,  the  most  absolute  and  admitted  evidence 
that  Dr.  Carson's  doctrine  respecting  this  preposition  is  erroneous. 
It  may  be  possible  to  have  even  a  little  more  conscience  than  the 
devil,  and  still  question  whether  ix  by  its  essential  force  proves 
that  the  Eunuch  was  dipped  into  tlie  water  or  even  that  he  was 
within  tlie  water  at  all.  So  far  from  Dr.  Carson's  friends  accept- 
ing the  doctrine  that  ix  "  always  means  out  of,  implying  that  the 
point  of  departure  is  within  the  object,  to  which  tliere  is  no  color 
of  exception,"  they  expressly  deny  tiiat  it  can  have,  in  tliis  case, 
the  meaning  "  out  of,"  and  must  have  the  meaning  from.     As  it 


INNESS    INAPPRECIABLE.  195 

is  admitted  by  Dv.  Carsou  himself  that  eiq  may  mean  imto,  it 
necessarily  follows,  so  far  as  the  force  of  terms  is  concerned,  that 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch  may  have  stepped  down  from  the  chariot 
to  the  water  and  stepped  up  into  the  chariot  from  the  water. 
While  we  claim  that  this  may  be  the  translation,  we  do  not  claim 
that  it  mud  be.  There  is  no  need  for  our  doing  so.'  It  is  in 
proof,  that  the  position  of  the  chariot  may  have  been  such  as  to 
necessitate  stepping  into  the  water  in  stepping  down  from  the 
chariot ;  and  it  is  in  proof,  that  the  quantity  of  water  may  have 
been  so  limited  as  to  make  it  unnecessary  to  change  the  position 
of  the  chariot  on  this  account.  These  points  being  proved,  as 
possible,  the  extremest  definitions  of  £!C  and  h  do  not  militate 
against  our  view ;  while  such  proof  is  an  absolute  arrest  to  the 
(accustomed)  assumption  of  a  dipping. 

John  12 :  32,  "If  I  be  lifted  up  (ix  rv^q  yr^q)  from  the  earth ;  .  .  . 
This  be  said  signifying  what  death  he  should  die."  This  case 
shows,  again,  exterior  position  with  respect  to  the  earth,  without 
the  possibility  of  movement  to  secure  such  position  beginning 
within  the  earth.  Thucyd.  IV,  31,  "Which  was  (ix  0a.\a<s<7riq)  from 
the  sea  steep,  and  {i/.  r/~?  yi^'z)  from  the  land  difficult  of  assault." 
The  preposition  here  does  not  indicate  that  the  promontory  came 
"  out  of  the  sea  "  on  one  side,  and  "  out  of  the  earth  "  on  the  other 
side ;  but  where  it  stood  out^  with  respect  to  the  sea,  it  was  steep, 
and  where  it  stood  oid^  with  respect  to  the  land,  it  was  hard  to  be 
assailed.  "The  Genitive  case,  with  ix^  has  uniformly  the  meaning 
wiih  respect  to^''  (Harrison).  Lj'cophron,  lin.  844,  "Who  forming 
men  (e?  dxpoo  nodoc;)  from  the  extremity  of  the  foot,  making  a 
statue."  A  statue  is  not  formed  "out  of"  the  extremity  of  the 
foot. 

The  association  of  this  preposition  with  £<c  does  not  change  its 
character. 

Homer,  Iliad  XYI,  639,  "Covered  with  darts,  and  blood,  and 
dust  (ix  xe<paXr^e;  iq  nodaq  axpaoc)  from  the  head  to  the  extremities 
of  the  feet."  If  dq  does  not  carry  the  darts,  and  blood,  and  dust, 
into  "the  extremities  of  the  feet,"  why  must  Ix  bring  them  out  of 
"  the  head  "  ?  Achilles  Tat.  IV,  18, "  Stooping  forward  {kx  r?;?  vswq) 
from  the  vessel,  he  directs  his  face  {dq  tuv  nora/idv)  towards  the 
stream."  This  is  Dr.  Conant's  translation.  If  we  translate  the 
passage  under  consideration  in  the  same  wa}'^,  it  will  read,  "  They 
stepped  down  towards  the  water,  and  stepped  w^  from  the  water," 
and  then  what  becomes  of  the  "Satan"  argument  for  immersion? 


196  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Is  it  said, "  Circumstances  modify  the  meanings  of  words"  ?  We 
answer,  This  is  common  sense  ;  but  what  then  becomes  of  the 
postulation  which  malies  (Sanrt^co  mean  "one  thing  and  only  one 
thing,"  and  t/.  to  mean  "movement  beginning  within  an  object,  to 
which  there  is  no  color  of  exception"?  If  the  position  of  the 
EgjqDtian  must  be  considered,  namely,  sailing  in  a  boat  on  a 
river;  and  if  his  object  must  be  considered,  namely,  to  get  a  drink 
of  water  by  making  a  cup  of  his  hand ;  so  the  position  of  Philip 
aud  the  Eunuch  must  be  considered,  namely,  travelling  in  a  chariot 
and  arrival  im  rl  udwp ;  and  their  object  must  be  considered,  namel}^, 
to  administer  Christian  baptism  (Jj(iaTi  etq  rd  ovo/j.a  tou  Kupioo  'Irj^jdu) 
^^with  wate;"  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  And  when  this 
has  been  done,  the  dipping  of  the  Eunuch  into  water  has  far  more 
absolutely  disappeared  than  has  the  dipping  of  the  boatman's  face 
into  the  river  Nile. 

There  is  a  transaction  related  in  Scripture  where  ix  occurs, 
which  is  stated  with  so  much  of  detail  and  precision,  that  it  may 
be  well  to  consider  it.  I  refer  to  the  rolling  away  of  the  stone 
from  the  sepulchre  of  our  blessed  Lord. 

Mark  15 :  46,  "And  laid  him  in  a  sepulchre  which  was  hewn 
(^z  Tzirpaq)  of  rock."  This  use  of  U  indicates  the  material  of  which 
the  sepulchre  was  made,  viz.,  "of  rock."  Matthew  (27  :  60)  ex- 
presses the  same  idea  in  another  form,  "hewn  (ii>)  in  the  rock;" 
Luke  uses  yet  another  form  (23:53),  "in  a  rock-hewn  sepulchre 
(^v  iJ.vyjiJ.aTi  Xa^euTw^y 

Tliis  use  of  ix,  indicating  material  of  which  something  is  formed, 
and  consequently  sameness  with  that  wliich  is  formed,  is  quite 
common,  and  is  illustrated  in  John  3 :  6,  "That  which  is  born  {ix 
Tr^e;  nap/.uc)  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh  ;"  and  John  4:31  "(J  Hv  ix  r>7c  ?'^?', 
ix  t/7t  yy,<;  i^n,  xai  ix  ri^c  yv^q  XaXet)  He  that  is  of  the  earth,  is  of  the 
earth  (^earth-like),  and  speaketh  of  the  earth  (=  earth-like)." 

Closely  allied  to  this  usage  is  that  in  which  h/.  indicates  not  the 
material  of  which  anytliing  is  made,  but  the  agency  by  which  it 
exists  or  from  which  it  receives  character.  1  John  5,"  Whosoever 
is  born  {ix  too  Beou)  of  God  sinneth  not"  =  is  like  the  Author  of 
his  life  in  character,  who  does  not  sin  ;  John  3  :  6,  "That  which  is 
born  (iz  Till)  Ihehimrix;)  of  the  Spirit,  is  spirit  "  =  is  like  the  Spirit 
by  whom  tlie  change  expressed  by  "  born "  has  been  effected ; 
John  3:5,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  (^z  vdaroq)  of  water."     Birth 


OUT  OF.  197 

here,  and  in  the  preceding  cases,  has  of  necessity,  £^  modified  mean- 
ing. It  expresses,  in  general,  a  radical  change.  The  specific 
character  of  this  change  will  depend  upon  its  cause.  The  change 
produced  by  simple  water  applied  to  a  filthy  person  is  very  radical 
but  purely  physical.  This  cannot  be  the  birth  of  water  held  out 
to  Nicodemus.  It  must  refer  to  that  water  with  which  he  was 
familiar  as  a  Jew,  and  especially  as  a  "  Pharisee."  This  water 
had  nothing  to  do  with  physical  cleansing.  It  had  the  power  to 
cleanse  from  ceremonial  impurity  and  to  t^^pify  spiritual  cleansing. 
Therefore  Nicodemus  is  taught  the  insufficiency  of  such  change 
as  water  effects  in  a  man's  religious  condition,  and  the  necessity 
for  such  other  change  as  is  "of  the  Spirit,"  in  order  to  see  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

This  usage  of  ix,  with  the  agency,  is  strikingly  illustrated  in  the 
interpretation  of  this  passage  as  given  by  the  change  of  a  word  in 
the  Apostolical  Constitutions  VI,  15,  "Whosoever  is  unwilling  (ix) 
of  contempt  to  be  baptized,  shall  be  condemned  and  reprobated  as 
ungrateful  and  foolish.  For  the  Lord  says, '^dv  /lyj  r;?  iSanziffO^ 
^^  vdaroq  xai  Ylvsoimzoq^  '  Except  a  man  be  BAPTIZED  of  water  and 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.'  "  The  s^'n- 
tax  makes  it  impossible  to  translate  ^anTtad^  by  dipping  or  im- 
mersing. "To  be  dipped  of  or  out  of  water  and  the  Spirit,"  and 
"  to  be  immersed  of  or  out  of  water  and  the  Spirit,"  are  absurd 
statements.  "  To  be  baptized  (in  the  sense  to  he  made  regenerate) 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit "  is  facile  sj'ntax  and  as  good  theology 
according  to  the  Apostol.  Const's.  This  passage,  therefore,  over- 
turns the  univocal  theory  of  Dr.  Carson  both  as  to  ^anri^u)  and  as 
to  ix.  This  passage  is,  also,  confirmatory  of  the  interpretation  of 
one  parallel  as  to  syntax  mentioned  in  Classic  Baptism,  p.  335, 
"/SasTjCoirec  ix  7r£'(9a»y,"  where  ^x  is  indicative  of  agency,  ^''Baptizing 
of  cups,"  i.  e.,  making,  drunk  by  wine  in  the  cups.  "  Baptism  (ix) 
of  the  Spirit  "  is  regeneration  by  the  Spirit.  And  "  Baptism  (ix) 
of  the  wine  cup  "  is  intoxication  by  the  wine  cup.  This  use  of  ix^ 
as  expressive  of  agency,  is  recognized  by  the  Baptist  translation 
of  John  3  :  34,  "  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  (ix  fiirpou)  by  measure 
unto  him." 

Out  Of. 

John  20  :  2.  "  They  have  taken  away  the  Lord  (^x  rod  fivTjiieiou) 
out  of  the  sepulchre."  This  is  a  clear  case  in  which  the  action  con- 
nected with  ^x  "  begins  at  a  point  within  the  object."     This  point 


198  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  beginning,  however,  is  not  due  to  any  essential  force  of  this 
preposition,  but  1.  To  the  nature  of  the  case.  The  place  for  a 
dead  body  is  within  a  sepulchre.  2.  We  are  expressly  told  that 
the  body  was  tvithin  the  sepulchre,  as  in  Matt.  27  :  60,  "Joseph 
laid  the  body  (iv)  in  his  own  new  tomb;"  Mark  15:46,  "And 
laid  him  (Iv)  in  a  sepulchre ;  "  Luke  23  :  53,  "  And  laid  it  (h)  in 
a  rock-hewn  sepulchre."  If,  under  these  circumstances,  the  body 
is  "  taken  away,"  it  is  impossible  for  the  movement  to  begin  at 
any  other  point  than  that  where  the  body  is,  to  wit,  within  the 
sepulchre. 

The  case  proves,  as  stated  by  Harrison,  and  Kiihner,  and  Jelf, 
that  "  h  is  the  opposite  of  ^v."  It  does  not,  however,  prove  that 
h  i-equires  for  its  object  a  preceding  interior  position  such  as  that 
of  the  body  within  the  sepulchre.  The  essential  element  is  an 
exterior  position  in  contrast  with  an  interior  position.  How  such 
position  is  secured,  whether  originally  occupied  without  move- 
ment, or  whether  by  movement  from  within  the  related  object,  or 
from  within  a  superficial  space,  or  from  contact  at  any  point,  or 
by  the  dissolution  of  some  intermediate  bond,  ix  does  not  deter- 
mine. This  is  shown  by  another  use  of  this  preposition  in  con- 
nection with  this  same  transaction. 

■  Out  From. 

John  20  :  1.  "  Mary  Magdalene  cometh  {elq  iivrniejov)  to  the  sep- 
ulchre, and  seeth  the  stone  taken  away  {i/.  too  /Mrj/xewu)  out  from 
the  sepulchre." 

A  "stone,"  unlike  a  buried  bod}^,  may  or  may  not  be  within  a 
sepulchre.  Do  we  know  from  other  sources  what  was  the  char- 
acter and  position  of  this  stone  ?  The  information  on  both  these 
points  is  full  and  precise :  Matthew  (27  :  60)  says,  "  He  rolled  a 
great  stone  {npoqxoXiffai;  ttj  Obpa  TOO  fivrjtisiou)  to  the  door  of  the 
sepulchre,  and  departed;"  Mark  (15:46)  says,  "And  rolled  a 
stone  (iTTt  T7j'^  Oopav)  upon  the  door  of  the  sepulchre."  This  stone 
was  "  a  great  stone,"  and  its  office  was  to  close  the  entrance  of 
the  sepulchre.  Matthew  indicates  the  position  of  the  stone  as 
"  rolled  (tt/jo?)  (o,  against  the  door  ; "  and  Mark  as  "  rolled  to  and 
(^M)  upon  the  door."  Now,  observe  the  contrast  between  the  natu- 
ral relations  of  a  buried  body  and  of  this  stone  to  a  sepulchre. 
A  buried  body  is  of  necessity  within  the  sepulchre,  and  the  stone 
which  closes  the  entrance  to  a  sepulchre  is  of  necessity  precluded 


OUT    FROM.  199 

from  being  within  the  sepulchre.  In  accordance  with  this,  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  and  Luke  testify  that  the  body  of  our  Lord  was 
within  the  sepulchre,  and  Matthew  and  Mark  testify  that  the  stone 
was  without  the  sepulchre,  rolled  against  and  upon  the  door 
Could  contrast  be  broader  as  to  the  position,  with  respect  to  the 
sepulchre,  occupied  by  this  buried  body  and  this  protecting  stone  ? 
This  testimony  which  puts  the  stone  in  position  is  confirmed  by 
that  which  states  its  removal :  Matt.  28  :  2,  "  The  angel  of  the 
Lord  descended  from  heaven  and  (npoazlOwv)  came  to  and  rolled 
away  the  stone  {and)  from  the  door,  and  sat  upon  it."  Here  we 
are  told  the  angel  came,  not  into  the  sepulchre,  but  to  the  stone, 
which  was  exterior  to  the  sepulchre,  and  "rolled  it  away  (ano) 
from  the  door."  That  this  stone  was  not  within  the  sepulchre  is 
farther  proved  by  the  statement  of  Mark  (16:3,  4),  in  which  he 
uses  ix,  "  Who  shall  roll  {anb)  away  the  stone  for  us  (cx)  out  from 
the  door  ?  And  when  they  looked  they  saw  the  stone  {ar.ir/.sxbh<T- 
rac)  was  rolled  away." 

Here  Sind  and  ix  are  associated  in  the  removal  of  the  stone ;  but 
the  relation  Of  ix  is  more  specific,  it  is  out  from  the  door,  and  not 
out  of  the  sepulchre.  The  statement  that  an  object  is  in  a  door 
is  very  diverse  from  the  statement  that  it  is  within  the  door.  And 
the  statement  that  a  body  is  in  the  door  of  a  sepulchre  is  very 
diverse  from  the  statement  that  it  is  in  the  sepulchre.  This  "very 
great  stone  "  was  against  the  door,  upon  the  door,  and  limitedly 
(probably)  in  the  door ;  it  was  in  no  sense  within  the  sepulchre. 

Notwithstanding  the  relations  of  this  stone  to  the  sepulchre, 
purely  external ;  and  notwithstanding  the  express  statements  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  declaring  the  external  position  neces- 
saiy  to  the  fulfilment  of  its  office ;  and  notwithstanding  the  state- 
ment that  the  angel  came  to  the  stone,  rolled  it  away,  and  sat 
upon  it  without  entering  into  the  sepulchre  ;  and  notwithstanding 
the  absurdity  of  leaving  the  entrance  to  the  sepulchre  without  any 
protection,  when  they  were  to  "  make  it  as  secure  as  ye  can  ;  "  still 
the  translator  of  the  Baptist  Version  (John  20  :  1)  contends,  in  an 
elaborate  note,  that  this  "  very  great  stone  "  was  within  the  sepul- 
chre and  attached  to  an  inner  crypt!  He  also  insists  that  sk  here 
means  into,  and  Mary  Magdalene  came  (elq  ;j.v7]/is2(iu)  into  the  sep- 
ulchre befoi'e  she  saw  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away  from  the 
sepulchre. 

When  Jesus  came  eiq  ro  [iv^iielov  of  Lazarus  did  he  come  "  into 
the  sepulchre  "  before  he  saw  that  the  stone  was  not  taken  away  ? 


200  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

When  Jesus  commanded  the  stone  which  (inustro  in  doTw)  "  lay 
upo7i  the  sepulchre  "  of  Lazarus  to  be  taken  away,  was  the  stone 
within  the  sepulchre?  When  "the  stone  was  put  upon  the 
entrance  of  the  lion's  den  (^iniO-^xav  ixl  to  ffro/ia  too  Xdxxouy  and 
"sealed"  with  the  signet  of  king  and  lord,  was  it  put,  not  on  the 
outside  of  but,  within  the  den  ?  Theory,  as  well  as  "  much  learn- 
ing," doth  make  men  "  mad." 

The  stone  was  rolled  away  from  and  out,  with  respect  to  the 
door  and  the  sepulchre. 

Tlie  Postulate. 

We  can  now  judge  of  the  value  of  Dr.  Carson's  postulate.  Does 
the  wiping  off  of  "  dust,"  "  tears,"  "  ointment,"  begin  within  the 
object  ?  Does  the  stretching  out  of  the  arm  from  the  body  begin 
within  the  body  ?  Does  the  falling  off  of  a  chain,  or  of  a  viper  from 
the  hand,  begin  within  the  hand  ?  Does  the  falling  off  of  a  boat 
in  the  sea,  from  a  vessel  (by  reason  of  the  cutting  of  a  rope),  begin 
within  the  vessel  ?  Does  the  rolling  away  of  a  stone  from  the  door 
of  a  sepulchre  begin  within  the  sepulchre? 

If  these  questions  should  be  answered  by  the  friends  of  the 
theory  in  the  affirmative,  and  they  are  willing  to  take  a  tear-drop 
resting  upon  the  foot,  or  a  chain  resting  upon  the  wrist,  or  a  stone 
resting  against  a  rock,  as  expressive  of  the  depth  of  withinness 
demanded  by  tx,  I  do  not  know  that  any  one  need  object  to  allow- 
ing both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  to  step  into  the  water,  and  step 
out  of  the  water,  having  entered  to  a  depth  quite  equal  to  the 
profoundest  of  either  of  these  cases. 

"  The  Rack:' 

Dr.  Carson  says,  "  Amid  the  most  violent  perversion  that  this 
passage  can  sustain  on  the  rack,  it  will  still  cry  out  immersion, 
immersion ! "  It  is  quite  possible  that  on  the  rack  the  cry  of 
"immersion"  will  be  emitted,  for  under  the  torture  of  "the 
thumbscrew"  and  "the  boot"  falsehood  has  oftentimes  been 
uttered  for  truth  ;  but  if  these  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost  are 
allowed  to  speak  under  no  other  pressure  than  that  of  truth,  they 
will  evermore  proclaim — "baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  "  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus !  "  And  this 
they  will  do,  to  what  or  into  what,  from  what  or  out  of  what, 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch  may  have  stepped  down  or  stepped  up. 


"the  rack."  201 

The  interpretation  thus  given  takes  every  word  and  every  cir- 
cumstance in  its  natural  order  and  at  its  proper  value.  The 
interpretation  of  the  theory  does  neither  :  1.  It  arrests  the  chariot 
before  it  comes  "  (im  r]  vdwp)  upon  some  water ; "  2.  It  creates  a 
space  between  the  chariot  and  the  water  ;  3.  It  converts  this  space 
into  a  declivit}^ ;  4.  It  takes  the  word  which  expresses  stepping 
down  from  the  chariot  (leaving  its  occupants  to  dismount  the 
best  way  they  can),  and  conducts  them  (by  the  help  of  this  bor- 
rowed word)  down  the  created  declivity  to  the  water ;  5.  At  the 
water  et'c  is  used  farther  to  conduct  into  "two  feet  nine  inches" 
water  for  the  convenience  of  dipping;  6.  The  force  of  rt  is  rejected, 
and  a  limited  quantity  of  water  is  converted  into  unlimited  quan- 
tity ;  1.  The  meaning  of  fianriZui  (as  a  farther  convenience)  is  con- 
verted into  dipping;  8.  As  a  necessity,  dq  vdwp  into  water,  is 
supplied  from  the  theory,  while  "  d<;  to  ovoij.a  too  Kupiou  Ufjaoo^  into 
the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  (supplied  by  inspiration  in  this 
same  chapter  8  :  16,  under  the  ministry  of  this  same  Philip)  and 
udart  with  water,  the  uniform  term  used  by  the  narrator  of  this 
transaction,  are  rejected ;  9.  The  word  appropriate  to  express 
(and  so  used  in  this  same  chapter  8:31)  the  stepping  up  into  the 
chariot,  is  rejected  from  such  use  and  compelled  to  do  service  in 
bringing  up  out  of  deeper  water  into  "  shallower  at  the  edge  ;" 
10.  Having  deprived  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  of  the  means  for  re- 
mounting into  the  chariot,  Philip  is  dismissed  without  obtaining 
a  seat  at  all,  and  the  Eunuch  is  sent  on  his  way  having  entered 
his  chariot  no  one  can  tell  how. 

Such  is  the  detail  of  the  only  case  of  ritual  baptism  under 
Christianity,  to  which  the  fi'iends  of  dipping  ever  ventured  to 
appeal  as  lending  any  possible  countenance  to  their  practice  during 

THE    ENTIRE    HISTORY   OF    THE    NeW    TESTAMENT    CHURCH. 

To  those  who  "  thirst  to  know  the  will  of  God "  we  leave  it, 
that  they  may  gather  from  it  its  teachings.  Should  their  con- 
clusions differ  from  ours,  we  will  not  on  that  account  declare,  that 
they  have  "  no  more  conscience  than  Satan,"  however  much  we 
may  believe  them  to  be  mistaken. 


202  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


RITUAL  BAPTISM  OP  THE  GENTILES. 

"by  the  authority  of  the  lord," 
with  water,  into  the  name  of  the  lord  jesus. 

Acts  10  :  47,  48. 

M.rjTc  TO  v6o)p  KuXiicai  ^vvarai  Tig  tov  jiy  (iaTTTiadf/vai  ToiiTovg,  biTiveg  tu  Hvev/xa 
TO  "Ay tov  eTia^ov  Kadug  Kal  rjiielg^  UpoaiTa^e  re  avTovg  jiaTZTicdijvai  iv  tu  ovo/xarc 
tov  Kvpiov. 

"  Can  any  man  forbid  the  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which 
have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we? 

"And  he  commanded  them,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  to  be  baptized?" 

POINTS    OF    SPECIAL   INTEREST. 

This  case  of  ritual  baptism  has  points  of  special  interest:  1.  The 
Gentiles  are  now,  for  the  first  time,  welcomed  into  the  Christian 
church  b}'^  ritual  baptism,  under  the  special  authority  of  the  Lord, 
having  previously  been  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  both  with 
that  baptism  which  regenerates  the  soul,  and  with  that  baptism 
which  invests  with  miraculous  endowments;  2.  Water  is  expressly 
stated  as  entering  into  Christian  ritual  baptism,  now,  for  the 
second  time  only,  and  for  the  last  time;  3.  The  use  of  the  phrase 
iv  Tuj  ovoij.ari  rod  Kupiou  SO  as  to  raise  the  grammatical  question, 
What  is  its  syntactical  relation  ?  and,  tlius,  answer  another  ques 
tion.  What  is  its  logical  value  ?  4.  The  Gentiles  received  the 
same  baptism  as  did  the  Jews. 

These  are  all  points  not  merely  of  theoretic  interest  but  of 
great  practical  value. 

Ritual  Baptism  to  be  Perpetuated. 

This  ritual  baptism  of  Gentiles,  by  special  divine  authorization, 
proves,  that  this  rite  enters,  essentially  and  permanently,  into  the 
constitution  of  the  Christian  church.  And  the  fact,  that  these 
Gentiles  were  baptized  first  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  subsequently 
by  water,  proves,  that  Christian  baptism  is  not  a  result  eflfected 
by  conjoint  and  cooperative  agencies,  viz.,  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
water ;  but  that  these  agencies  are  distinct,  disjoined,  and  diverse 
in  nature,  power,  and  oflSce,  while  related  to  one  and  the  same  bap- 
tism (==  the  remission  of  sin,  and  the  regeneration  of  the  soul) 


"the  water."  203 

■which  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  is  symbolized  by  water. 
This  disjunction  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  Water  as  co-operative 
agencies  or  as  conjoint  agency,  and  their  conjunction  as  efficient 
agency  and  sequent  symbol  agency  showing  forth  visibly  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  of  the  last  importance  in  view  of  the 
earl}^  development  of  doctrine  upon  this  point,  which  has  been, 
more  or  less,  perpetuated  to  this  day. 

''The  Water:' 

Water,  whenever  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  entering  into  the 
administration  of  baptism,  is  invariably  spoken  of  in  the  abstract, 
and  without  regard  to  quantity. 

In  the  administration  of  baptism  by  John  quantity  was  present ; 
but  this  quantity  was  an  accident  belonging  to  the  locality  of 
John's  ministr}',  not  an  essential  entering  into  the  rite.  Neither 
the  Jordan  nor  any  other  river  ever  afterward  appears  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism.  At  Euon  (springs)  "  much  water  "  = 
many  waters,  or  springs,  are  spoken  of;  not,  however,  to  show 
that  there  was  a  quantity  of  water  for  baptism,  but  to  explain 
how  it  was,  that  John  and  the  disciples  of  Jesus  could  baptize  in 
the  same  neighborhood  without  interfering  with  each  other. 

That  this  explanation  of  the  relation  of  Jordan  and  of  Enon  to 
the  administration  of  baptism  is  correct,  is  shown  by  the  fact, 
that  when  the  singular  wilderness  ministry  of  John  passes  away, 
the  river  baptism  vanishes  from  Scripture  with  it ;  and  when  the 
singular  concurrent  baptism  of  John  and  Jesus  ceases,  Enon  and 
its  "  many  springs  "  ceases  to  be  heard  of.  Farther  confirmation 
is  found  in  the  fact,  that  when  John  gives  the  authority  for  his 
using  water  in  baptism  he  says  nothing  of  quantity,  but  mentions 
WATER  simply  and  abstractly — John  1  :  33,  "  He  that  sent  me  to 
baptize  with  water."  The  translation  "baptize  in  water"  being 
an  error  (see  Johannic  Baptism),  the  quantity  of  water,  thereby 
elicited,  is  also  an  error.  The  Saviour,  when  speaking  of  the 
water  used  b}'  John  in  baptism,  speaks  of  it  in  the  same  abstract 
manner — Acts  1  :  5,  "John  indeed  baptized  {ydari)  with  water." 
Philip  evidently  taught  the  Eunuch  that  it  was  water ^  and  not 
quantity  of  water,  which  entered  into  Christian  baptism,  as  shown, 
when  they  came  "  {l-\  re  udwp)  upon  some  water,"  by  his  exclama- 
tion, "See!  water."  The  passage  before  us  (the  only  other  one 
in  which  water  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  administra- 


204  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

tion  of  the  rite  in  Scripture)  establislies  the  same  point.  Peter 
reiterates  the  doctrine  of  John,  of  John's,  and  his.  Lord,  and  of 
the  instructed  Eunuch,  that  it  is  water,  simple  and  abstract  and 
not  quantity,  which  characterizes  Christian  ritual  baptism — in- 
quiring, "Who  can  forbid  the  water?"  This  question  was 
addressed  to  those  who  came  with  him  and  were  familiar  with  the 
use  of  "  the  water"  in  Christian  baptism.  The  use  of  the  definite 
article  (r6  vdwp)  "  the  water,"  would  be  inappropriate  to  water  in 
a  running  stream.  -  It  implies  water  separated  from  other  water 
and  set  apart  for  a  special  use.  Any  water  may  be  so  separated 
from  other  water  and  from  other  uses,  but  it  is  only  after  such 
separation  and  appropriation,  that  it  becomes  "  the  water  of  bap- 
tism." A  stream  of  water  is  no  more  "i!/?e  water  of  baptism" 
than  it  is  the  water  of  fishing,  or  the  water  of  sailing.  Water 
brought  in  a  vessel  and  so  separated  from  all  other  water  and 
appropriated  to  the  specific  use  of  the  Christian  rite,  becomes 
"the  water  of  baptism.''^  It  might  as  well  be  said,  that  Pilate 
came  down  from  the  judgment-seat  and  went  out  to  the  pool  of 
Siloam  to  get  water  to  wash  his  hands,  as  that  Peter  and  Corne- 
lius went  out  to  some  stream  for  "  the  water." 

The  language  of  Scripture  is  exhausted  by  Iv  vdarc,  vdarc,  rt  iidcup, 
TO  vSwp,  in  speaking  of  ritual  baptism,  and  the  addition  to  it  of 
quantity  is  an  absolute  addition  to  the  words  of  inspiration. 

^Ev  Tw  ovo/iarc  rou  Kupiou. 

It  is  a  very  common  idea,  that  this  phrase  here  represents  a 
formula  of  baptism  and  as  such  must  be  connected  with  Panna- 
6fjvm.  Olshausen,  in  answering  the  question — "  Did  the  Lord 
intend  to  establish  a  fixed  formula  of  baptism  in  Matt.  28  :  19?" 
says,  "  This  question  would  not  have  been  suggested  at  all,  had 
the  other  portions  of  the  New  Testament  shown  that  the  disciples 
in  administering  baptism  employed  these  words.  But  instead  of 
this,  we  find,  that  even  in  the  history  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
as  often  as  baptism  is  mentioned,  it  is  performed  onl}'  ei?  or  Ini  to 
ovopa,  h  Tuj  ovvjiaTc  ''Irjtrou  or  XpctTTou.^^  The  idea  of  Olshausen,  that 
in).  TU)  6v6[j.aTc  frjdou  XpcffTou  (ActS  2  :  38),  and  iv  Tu)  ovoiiaTi  Tvu 
Kupiuu  in  the  passage  before  us,  are  formulae  of  baptism  and  indi- 
cate, that  the  baptism  takes  place  "  in  the  name,  etc.,"  is  shared 
by  Professor  Ripley  and  by  Baptist  writers  generally,  as  well  as 
by  many  others. 

There  are  insuperable  objections  against  this  view.     The  fol- 


Ev  Toj  dvofxazt  TOO  Kupiou.  205 

lowing  are  some  of  these  objections  :  1.  There  is  no  satisfactory 
evidence  of  a  single  case  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  h  points 
out  the  receiving  element  (real  or  ideal)  in  baptism  ;  2.  Cases  are 
frequent  in  the  New  Testament  where  this  formula  (with  a  com- 
mand) expresses  the  source  of  authority  for  such  command  ;  e.  gr,, 
Acts  3:6,"  In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  {iv  tw  ovoiiaTt  'Irjaou 
XpiffTou)  rise  up  and  walk;"  Acts  16  :  18,  "I  command  thee  {h 
Tw  Svd/jLart  '/lyrroD  A'piarou)  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  to  come  out 
of  her."  This  last  command  is  by  Paul ;  the  first  is  by  Peter,  the 
same  who  issues  the  command  in  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion. Both  refer  their  authority  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  claim  to 
derive  authority  from  him  by  being  "  in  his  name  "  and  thus  in- 
vested with  his  authority.  There  was  no  occasion  in  all  Peter's 
ministry  when  he  more  needed  to  be  invested  with  divine  author- 
ity, than  when  the  door  of  the  Christian  church  was  to  be  opened  to 
the  Gentile  world.  He  here  claims  to  be  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord," 
while  he  commands  these  Gentiles  to  be  baptized.  If  objection 
should  be  made  to  this  interpretation  on  the  ground  of  the  order 
of  the  words,  it  may  be  answered:  That  the  order  of  sequence 
does  not  necessarily  determine  the  grammatical  or  logical  order. 
The  order  of  vdart  in  Matt.  3:11  is  after  (iar.ri'^w^  and  in  Luke 
3  :  1 6  is  before  it ;  yet  in  both  cases  the  grammatical  and  logical 
relations  of  vdart  to  the  baptism  remains  unchanged.  It  may  be 
farther  answered  ;  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (432)  quotes  this  passage 
giving  another  order,  thus;  "Peter  commanded  them  {Iv  rui 
Svo/iari  [.  X.  ,3a7trt<707i\>ai)  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  be  bap- 
tized." It  is  highly  probable,  that  this  was  the  order  and  the 
phraseology  of  the  text  used  by  Cyril,  as  it  is  also  that  of  the 
Codex  Sinaiticus.  Objection  from  the  order  is  therefore  not  only 
annulled,  but  whatever  of  weight  belongs  to  it  is  thrown  heavily 
on  the  other  side. 

3.  The  plea  for  disjoining /5a7rT£ff^i^vat  and  ivTui  ovofian  is  greatly 
strengthened  by  the  quite  unlooked-for  approval  of  the  translator 
of  the  Baptist  Version,  who,  retaining  the  order  of  the  common 
text  and  translating  "he  commanded  them  to  be  immersed  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,"  still,  in  a  note  says,  "'fv  tw  6v6;j.aTc^  in  the 
name,  or  by  the  authority  of  the  Lord,  he  commanded  them  to  be 
immersed.  'Ek;  to  ovo/ia^  and  iv  rui  ovo/iarc,  are  never  substituted 
in  Sacred,  or  Classic  literature,  as  synonyms.  The  authority  by 
which  an}'  act  is  performed  must  never  be  confounded  with  the 
meaning,  or  intention  of  it." 


206  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

There  are  some  points  developed  in  this  note  which  have  special 
value  as  coming  from  a  Baptist  scholar.  Among  them  are  these: 
1.  'Ev  Tw  dvop-ari  although  immediately  sequent  to  ^a-ri^m  has  not, 
thereby,  a  complementary  relation  to  it  as  expressive  of  the  ele- 
ment within  which  the  baptized  object  is  received. 

Dr.  Conant  in  translating  Matt.  3:11,  ^'■^aTzriZoj  uimt;  iv  udan,  I 
immerse  you  in  water,"  says  in  a  note :  "  This  is  the  only  sense 
in  which  ^■-'Can  be  used  in  connection  with  /3a;:T:tw."  If  the  "con- 
nection "  between  ^anri%w  and  Iv  referred  to  by  Dr.  Conant  is  that 
of  simple  sequence,  then  his  position  is  contradictory  to  that  of 
his  associate  translator.  But  if  a  connection  between  these  words 
requiring  the  translation  "  immersed  in  "  be  not  established  by 
mere  sequence,  then  it  should  be  proved  and  not  assumed  that  in 
Matt.  3:11  there  is  beyond  sequence  such  a  connection  between 
[ia-Kxi'^u)  and  Iv  udari  as  requires  that  iv  vSarc  should  be  taken  as  the 
complement  of  ^auTiZw.  And  this  proof  must  confront  and  nullify, 
1.  The  fact,  that  such  complementary  relation  drowns;  2.  The 
fact,  that  in  the  parallel  passage  (Luke  3:16,  udari  /Sa^rrjCw)  there 
is  no  iv  present,  and  its  regimen  in  Matthew  {u8azi)  does  not  follow 
but  precedes  the  verb ;  and  also  3.  The  fact,  that  Matthew  offers 
another  claimant  (e??  iieTdvotoy)  of  far  better  right  to  this  comple- 
mentary relation. 

2.  The  translator  of  Acts  says,"/5a:rT£Tw  iv  tm  ovo/iari  and  t3a-ri'^w 
eiq  TO  ovo/m  are  not  synonymous  phrases,  are  not  interchanged 
either  in  Classic  or  in  Sacred  literature,  and  require  a  discrimin- 
ating translation." 

This  view  antagonizes  that  of  Dr.  Conant  presented  in  his 
translation  of  Matt.  28:  19,  where  he  says,  "  i?i  the  name  is  the 
proper  English  expression  of  ek  tu  woimy  And  this  antagonism 
is  made  farther  manifest  by  the  translation  of  Acts  8:  16,  "Only 
they  had  been  immersed  (^k  ru  o'^ifia)  into  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  which  translation  (as  to  the  preposition)  is  made  emphatic 
in  a  note,  "  They  had  only  been  immersed  into  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus."  But  against  this  translation  and  sentiment  Dr. 
Conant  says:  '•'■  Into  the  name  is  not  an  English  phrase,  and 
though  the  literal  form  of  the  Greek  does  not  give  the  sense." 

Dr.  Conant,  as  the  final  reviser  of  the  Baptist  Version,  has 
prevailed  over  his  fellow-translator,  and  in  Matt.  28: 19,  Acts  8: 16, 
he  has  made  clq  rd  vva/xa  '■'-in  the  name;"  and  in  Acts  10:48  he 
has  made  iv  tu>  ovotmn^  also,  "in  the  name,"  thus  confounding 
diverse  forms,  as  his  associate  says  is  never  done  either  "  in 


^Ev  Tw  6v6;j.aTt  TOO  Koptoo.  207 

Classic  or  Sacred  literature."  Baptist  writers  have  neither  unity 
nor  consistency  in  their  interpretations,  whether  we  have  regard 
to  their  relations  to  one  another,  to  themselves,  or  to  the  princi- 
ples of  language. 

3.  The  translator  of  Acts  teaches,  that  the  difference  between 
/9a7rr£^a>  eic  and  fiunrt^oj  iv  is  not  merely  verbal,  but  of  essential  and 
unalterable  value  among  Classic  and  Sacred  writers.  This  doc- 
trine is  correct.  And  it  is  of  vital  importance  in  the  translation 
and  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  Both  forms  are  there  found, 
and  tlieir  use  is  discriminating  in  tlieir  relation  to  each  other,  but 
uniform  in  the  sphere  appropriate  to  each.  Tiiis  diversity  is 
ignored  and  the  different  forms  are  confounded  by  Dr.  Conant  in 
his  Baptist  Version,  wliich  merges  fio-Tzzc'Coj  £}<;  in  ftaTrri'Coj  ^v,  so  that 
a  reader  of  the  Baptist  Bible  would  never  know  that  a  baptism 
(er?  TO  ovo/xa)  '''•into  the  Name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of 
the  Holy  Gliost  "  was  commanded,  or  that  a  baptism  (sk  to  Svo;ia) 
'•''into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  was  administered  by  the 
Apostles.  The  baptism  announced  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  blotted 
out. 

On  this  point  hear,  farther,  the  associate  translator  of  Dr. 
Conant.  In  a  note  on  Acts  4:18  he  says:  "Inasmuch  as  we 
have  in  the  original  Scriptures  three  forms  of  expression  connected 
with  <m)!J.a  TOO  Ir/trou  A'fjtffTou,  of  very  different  import,  it  seems  to 
me  not  merel}'  expedient,  but  ol)ligatory,  that  we  should  give  to 
an  English  reader  three  corresponding  formulae  in  our  language, 
such  as — in  (tv)  the  name  of — upon  (iT:\)  the  name  of — into  (el?) 
the  name  of.  These  three  formulae  are  as  distinct  in  sense  as  in 
form.  The  first  indicates  authority,  viz.,  in  the  name  of  the  king 
or  commonwealth.  The  second  indicates  the  suljject  on  which 
the  authority  terminates,  the  citizens  of  the  commonwealth;  and 
the  third  the  reason  why,  or  the  object  for  which,  the  action  is 
performed."  This  translator  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  prin- 
ciples thus  laid  down  when,  in  Acts  2:  28,  he  translates  "immersed 
(iKt)  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  (sh)  for  the  remission  of 
sins  ;"  consistency  requires  the  translation — "  baptized  upon  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  into  the  remission  of  sins."  He  adds:  "ek, 
immediately  following,  intimates  transition  into  a  new  state  of 
relation,  such  as  matrimony,  citizenship,  servitude,  or  freedom  " — 
or  (let  me  add  with  Peter)  into  the  remission  of  sins.  Dr.  Co- 
nant agrees  with  this  sentiment  (p.  104):  "  The  word  Baptizein 
...  by  analogy  expressed  the  coming  into  a  new  state  of  life  or 


208  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

experience^  in  which  one  was  as  it  were  inclosed  and  swallowed 
up,  so  that,  temporaril}'  or  permanently,  he  belonged  wholly  to  it- 
.  .  .  The  change  in  the  character  and  state  of  the  believer  was 
total,  comparable  to  death,  as  separating  entirely  from  the  former 
spiritual  life  and  condition."  Now  this  is  precisely  the  baptism 
which  the  Scripture  declares,  and  it  is  precisely  the  baptism  which 
Dr.  Conant  rejects.  How  could  language  express  "  the  coming 
into  a  new  state  of  life  or  experience — total  change  in  the  char- 
acter and  state  of  the  believer,  separating  entirely  from  the  former 
spiritual  life  and  condition  " — more  clearly  and  absolutely  than 
does  baptism  into  repentance,  baptism  into  the  remission  op 
SINS,  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  baptism  into  the 
DEATH  OF  Christ,  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  op  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  These  are  the  baptisms  of 
the  Bible,  and  they  are  all  rejected  by  the  friends  of  the  theory ; 
they  are  eliminated  from  the  Baptist  Bible,  and  iJi  their  stead  is 
substituted  a  dipping  into  water,  "  in  the  name,"  etc. ;  neither 
the  "dipping,"  nor  the  "into  water,"  nor  the  "in  the  name  of," 
being  found  in  Revelation  anywhere  as  an  element  entering  into 
its  baptism. 

4.  This  translator  teaches,  that  h  tw  dvo/iarc  rod  Kupiou  although 
immediately  following  ftar.ri'^u)  is  not  logically  connected  with  it, 
but  is  expository  of  the  condition  of  Peter,  who  is  represented  as 
being  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  and  hence  deriving  authority 
to  speak  and  to  represent  the  Lord — "  iv  rw  dvoiiari,  in  the  name, 
or  by  the  authority  of  the  Lord  he  commanded  them  to  be  bap- 
tized." 

B}' parity  of  reasoning  h  U'^suiAari  ^Ayiu)  following /'Sarr-j'^w  in  Matt. 
.3:11  must  be  expository  of  the  condition  of  abruq  (==  Christ), 
who  being  "  in  the  Holy  Ghost  "  is  invested  with  his  power  to 
baptize  the  soul  into  repentance  and  the  remission  of  sins  ;  as  he 
is  also  "z)i  five'''' ^=  invested  with  the  power  of  condemning  judg- 
ment toward  the  impenitent  and  the  unbelieving. 

On  the  other  hand,  by  Iv  ufJarc,  John  declares  that  he  is  neither 
invested  with  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  nor  with  that  of  divine 
judgment ;  but  merely  with  such  power  as  belongs  to  simple 
water,  which  is  a  symbol  power  =  to  set  forth  the  purifying  nature 
of  that  baptism  which  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

results. 
This  narrative  of  the  introduction  of  Christian  baptism  among 


BAPTISM  OF  John's  disciples.  209 

the  Gentiles  proves  1.  That  ritual  baptism  is  to  be  perpetuated; 
2.  That  the  element  and  the  only  element  to  be  used  in  this  rite 
is  Water  ;  3.  That  tlie  relation  of  water  to  the  baptism  is  that 
of  a  symbol  instrument,  as  expressed  by  the  nude  dative  (vSarc), 
the  only  form  in  which  water  is  expressed  by  the  historian  of  the 
Acts  and  of  the  baptisms  by  the  Apostles ;  4.  The  baptism  of 
these  Gentiles  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Samaritans  (8  :  16) 
"  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ;"  5.  To  add  quantity  to  the 
element  (water)  is  to  add  to  the  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

As  the  facts  and  the  terms,  divinely  descriptive  of  this  baptism 
of  the  Gentiles  h  nven/iarc ' Ayioj,  prove,  that  this  baptism  was  not 
"zn  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  consequently  that  such  interpretation 
of  these  words  is  unscriptural  and  false,  so,  the  facts  and  terms, 
expressed  or  supplied  by  necessary  ellipsis,  prove,  that  there 
neither  was  nor  could  be  any  baptism  into  watei'  under  the  divine 
instruction,  that  the  rite  was  to  be  administered  "  udan^  dq  to 
6vo[j.a  TOO  Kupiou  'Irjffou,  With  water  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus." 


RITUAL    BAPTISM    OF    JOHN'S    DISCIPLES    WITH    WATER,  INTO    THE 
NAME    OF    THE    LORD    JESUS. 

Acts  19 :  3-5. 

Elf  ri  ovv  EfiaTmad-tjTE  ;  Ot  6e  eIttov'  Elg  to  'ludvvov  HaTrTKr/na.  EItte  6e 
riavXng'  'ludwr/Cj  /"^i'?  'sjidnTiae  pdTrTia/ia  fiETaovoiag  .  .  ,  'AKOvaavTEC  6e  EBairTiG- 
Br/aav  Eig  to  bvo/na  tov  K.vpiov  'Irjaov. 

"Into  what,  then,  were  ye  baptized?  And  they  said,  Into  the  baptism 
of  John.  Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptized  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
saying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should  believe  on  him  which  should  come 
after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus." 

FACTS. 

Paul  finds  at  Ephesus  a  company  of  John's  disciples  apparently 
living  apart  from  heathenism,  Judaism,  and  Christianity.  These 
persons  remained  (some  score  of  years  subsequent  to  the  ministry 
of  John)  uninformed  respecting  the  development  of  Christianity. 
They  were  especially  without  knowledge  of  Jesus  as  the  Lord 
Messiah,  and  of  the  gift  of  the  Hoty  Ghost  consequent  upon  his 
ascension  to  heaven. 

Apparently  because  of  their  long-isolated  position  and  lack  of 

14 


210  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

knowledge,  the}'  are  both  instructed  in  the  knowledge  of  Jesus 
and  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  are  baptized  with  water 
into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  also  by  miraculous  endow- 
ments from  the  Holy  Ghost  shed  down  u[)on  lliera. 

A  deduction  from  a  case  so  special  in  its  character,  affirming 
the  re-baptism  of  all  John's  disciples  under  widely  diverse  cir- 
cumstances, would  be  unsafe.  The  disciples  of  John  were  "bap- 
tized, with  water,  into  repentance,"  and  they  were  taught  that 
real  repentance-baptism  insured  "baptism  into  the  remission  of 
sins,"  and  they  were  yet  farther  taught,  that  this  remission  of 
sins  came  through  "  the  Coming  One  "  whom  John  pointed  out 
in  the  person  of  Jesus,  saying,  "  Behold !  the  Lamb  of  God  that 
taketli  away  the  sins  of  the  world."  That  they  who  immediately 
"believed  oifJcsus,  and  passed  from  the  ministry  of  John  into  his 
discipleship  were  a  second  time  baptized  with  water  "  into  repent- 
ance," "  into  remission  of  sins,"  or  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  there  is  no  Scriptural  evidence. 

The  farther  deduction  from  this  case,  that  all  who  were  ritually 
baptized  were  also  miraculously  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost  with 
prophetic  gifts  and  power  to  speak  with  tongues,  would  be  want- 
ing in  an}'  adequate  Scripture  evidence. 

That  the  reference  in  this  transaction  is  to  the  special  manifes- 
tation of  the  Holy  Ghost  under  Christianity,  and  not  to  the  mere 
existence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  evident  1.  From  the  nature  of 
the  case,  every  Jew  knew  of  the  existence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  2. 
From  the  teaching  of  Christ — John  7  :  o9,  "  This  spake  he  of  the 
Spirit  which  they  that  believe  on  him  should  receive;  for  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  yet  given ;"  3.  From  the  facts  at  Pentecost, 
Caesarea,  and  Samaria ;  4.  From  such  bestowal  on  this  occasion 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Trandation — Fa:;. 

The  position  occupied  by  £('?  in  relation  to  Christian  baptism, 
is  one  of  supreme  importance,  and  must  determine  the  real  nature 
of  that  baptism.  That  such  determination  may  be  truly  made,  it 
is  essential  that  its  true  value,  as  in  tlie  mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
ghould  be  clearly  attained  and  maintained.  The  diversity  of 
translation  which  characterizes  this  preposition,  as  related  to  the 
subject  of  baptism,  is  remarkable.  We  have  i/t,  i/ito,  unto,  for, 
in  order  lo,  wilh  reference  lo,  as  a  part  of  the  list.  This  varying 
translation  of  a  preposition,  in  the  same  relation,  shows  that  there 


TRANSLATION.  211 

must  be  some  aspect  of  the  case  not  j^et  fully  brought  into  the 
light.  The  passage  before  us  affords  some  special  help  toward  a 
right  translation  and  conception  of  Christian  baptism,  and  3'et 
there  is  no  uniformity. 

The  Baptist  translator  of.  Acts  translates  thus:  "Into  what, 
then,  were  you  immersed  ?  And  they  said.  Into  John's  immer- 
sion. Then  said  Paul,  John  indeed  administered  an  immersion 
of  reformation.  .  .  .  They  were  immersed  mto  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus."  The  preposition  is  here  translated  into^  and  "  bap- 
tized "  by  immersed.,  except  where  "  administered  "  is  substituted 
for  it  in  what  would  otherwise  be,  ^'■immersed  an  immersion  of 
reformation."  To  some  this  translation  may  be  intelligible,  but 
to  others  it  will  remain  "  Greek"  still.  In  a  note,  this  translator 
says,  "£1'?  ought  never  to  be  translated  in.  The  Greeks  having 
iv  in,,  as  well  as  si^  into.'''' 

Dr.  Conant,  as  final  reviser  of  the  Baptist  Version,  rejects  this 
translation  and  the  doctrine  of  the  note,  and  substitutes  this: 
^^  Unto  what,  then,  were  ye  immersed?  And  they  said,  Unto 
John's  immersion.  Then  said  Paul,  John  indeed  immersed  with 
the  immersion  of  repentance.  They  were  immersed  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

Dr.  Conant  translates  c;'?  by  U7ito  and  tn,  and  introduces  luith 
(as  his  associate  substituted  "  administered")  to  smooth  over  im- 
mersed an  immersion. 

Prof.  Hackett  translates  unto.  But  a  writer  in  the  "  Baptist 
Quarterl}^ "  advocates  a  uniform  translation  of  this  preposition  in 
connection  with  l)aptism,  by  iiito ;  while  another  writer,  in  the 
"  National  Baptist,"  says :  "  I  have  felt  a  serious  objection  to  into 
the  name  after  baptize  or  immerse,  because  that  construction 
seems  to  me  to  indicate  the  element  in  or  into  which,  literally  or 
metaphoricall}^,  the  person  is  placed  b}^  the  act.  .  .  .  But  rather 
that  we  are  immersed  i?i,  or,  if  you  please,  into  waterwith  refer- 
ence to  the  name  of,  etc."  Thus,  this  writer  prefers  in  to  into, 
but  thinks  with  reference  to  would  be  an  improvement  over  both. 
He  thinks,  too,  that  it  might  be  well  to  translate  iv  odarc  into 
water  ("  or,  if  you  please,  into  water  ").  I  suppose  for  a  like  reason 
tltat  he  thinks  it  would  not  be  well  to  translate  el<;  t6  wo/ia  into  the 
Name,  to  wit,  "because  that  construction  seems  to  indicate  water 
as  NOT  the  element  into  which  the  person  is  placed."  There  is 
a  beautiful  childlike  simplicity  in  this  statement.  When  the  Holy 
Ghost  teaches  a  baptism  of  the  soul  "  (sk)  into  Repentance," 


212  CHKISTIC    BAPTISM. 

"(sic)  into  the  remission  of  sin,"  "(^k)  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  "  (eig)  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  tlie  Holy  Ghost,"  and  indicates  the  use  of  the  element,  solely  by 
iv  uSarc,  vdari^  by  water,  vnth  water,  it  is  not  strange  that  into  should 
indicate  the  new  condition  into  which  the  soul  must  pass-,  and  that 
there  should  be  a  willingness  that  hy  water,  with  water,  should  be 
metamorphosed  so  as  to  take  the  shape  into  water,  and  thus  win 
the  appeai'ance  of  "  indicating  the  element  into  which  the  person 
passes."  But  as  this  is  not  our  Bible  of  inspiration,  the  "  indi- 
cation "  had  better  remain  as  it  is.  And  if  the  friends  of  the 
theor}'^  reject  this  confessed  "indication"  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
make  a  substitute  of  their  own,  the  responsibilitj'  is  theirs.  We 
will  have  none  of  it.  We  accept  what  is  acknowledged  to  be  an 
"indication"  as  much  more  than  an  indication,  even  as  a  clear, 
express,  and  uniform  declaration  of  the  Divine  will,  enforced  as 
such  by  just  principles  of  interpretation,  and  sure  doctrines  of 
inspiration. 

Prof.  J.  Addison  Alexander  ma}^  stand  as  a  representative  of  a 
large  number  who  believe  that  ek,  in  this  relation,  should  be  and 
must  be  translated  at  its  normal  value,  "  into."  In  his  commentary 
on  the  passage,  he  says:  "  Unto^  in  both  clauses,  should  be  into^ 
as  the  usual  and  strict  sense  of  the  Greek  word,  and  as  more  ex- 
pressive of  the  main  idea  here  suggested,  namel^^,  that  of  initia- 
tion, union,  and  incorporation.  .  .  .  Thej^  were  baptized  into  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  i.e.^  into  union  with  him  as  the  only 
Saviour." 

Into  What? 

To  translate,  ek  r\  ii3a7TTCfTfh^T£^  "  Lito  what  water  (fresh  or  salt, 
river  or  spring,  hot  or  cold)  were  you  baptized?"  is  a  translation 
not  yet,  I  believe,  proposed  by  those  who  insist  that  Christian 
baptism  is  a  dii)ping  into  water.  But  such  should  be  Paul's 
inquiry  if  the  theory  be  true.  There  is  no  room  for  the  inquiry, 
"  Into  what — water,  or  milk,  or  oil,  or  wine — were  you  baptized  ? 
for  neither  John  nor  Christianity  has  anything  to  do  with  aught 
but  water  in  baptism. 

Whatever  translation  of  ei?  may  be  possible  in  its  varied  rela- 
tions, there  is  no  possible  translation  when  it  relates  to  a  real  or 
verl)al  baptism,  but  into. 

To  translate  "  unto  wliat,"  or  "  for  what,"  is  at  best  a  bungle, 
for  the  moment  we  are  told  into  ivhat  anjj^  one  is  baptized,  we  are 


INTO    WHAT?  213 

thereby  informed  "unto"  what  and  "for"  what  he  is  baptized. 
When  Timon  or  Alcibiades  proposes  to  baptize  a  man  "  into  the 
river ^''^  or  "into  the  sf^a,"  we  know  that  it  is  a  baptism  "unto" 
deai^,  and  '■''for''''  the  purpose  of  kilUng.  When  Ishmael  baptizes 
Gedaliah  into  drunken  dupor,  we  know  that  it  is  "unto"  pro- 
found insensibility,  and  "  for"  facilitating  murder. 

When  we  are  told  that  John  preached  baptism  "  into  rejoent- 
ance^''^  we  know  that  it  was  "  unto  "  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  and 
"for"  preparing  the  way  of  the  Lord.  But  the  translation  unto 
repentance,  for  repentance  repudiates  the  form  of  statement  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  order  to  repudiate  the  statement  itself;  for  such 
translators  deny  that  there  is  any  baptism  into  repentance  at  all. 
But  those  to  whom  Paul  addressed  the  question  dq  r\  e:^aizTia^rs ; 
understood  him,  as  Bloomfield  suggests,  to  ask,  ek  r\  ^dTZTiap.a-^ 
as  shown  by  their  answer,  s.iq,  to  "Iwdwou  ftdnriff/jLa^  "into 
the  baptism  of  John.^^  This  abbreviated  statement  was  perfectly 
plain  to  Paul,  because  he  was  familiar  with  the  nature  of  John's 
baptism  as  a  /SaKzcfffxa  jxsravoiat;.  He,  also,  knew  that  a  baptism 
etc  iJ-zrawiav.  preparing  for  the  Coming  One,  was  essentially  diverse 
in  its  nature,  and  in  the  knowledge  communicated  by  it,  from  a 
baptism  tl<;  to  woixa  Tou  Kupioo  'Irjffou,  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus"  come  and  crucified,  risen  and  ascended.  Dr.  Carson  says, 
"  What  is  baptism  in  one  case  is  baptism  in  another.  Between  the 
baptism  of  Christ  and  the  baptism  of  John  there  could  be  no  differ- 
ence in  the  mode."  It  would  hardly  be  possible  to  put  a  greater 
amount  of  error  into  the  same  number  of  words.  There  is  no 
mode  of  action  essential  to  ayiy  baptism.  Baptism  expresses  a 
condition  under  some  controlling  influence.  A  drowned  man  at 
the  bottom  of  the  sea  is  in  a  state  of  baptism ;  a  drunken  man  in 
the  highway  is  in  a  state  of  baptism  ;  and  a  man  in  a  deep  sleep 
on  his  bed  is  in  a  state  of  baptism.  If  now  "  what  is  baptism  in 
one  case  is  baptism  in  another,"  then  a  baptism  in  the  sea,  is  the 
same  as  a  baptism  in  the  highway,  or  in  a  feather  bed ! 

In  like  manner  a  baptism  into  repentance  is  the  same  thing  as 
a  baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins  ;  and  a  baptism  into  the  name 
of  Paul  is  the  same  thing  as  a  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus ;  and  a  baptism  into  Moses  is  the  same  thing  as  a  baptism 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Dr.  Carson's  idea  of  a  baptism  is  as  fari'emoved  from  the 
truth  as  the  idea  of  a  Hindoo  respecting  this  round  globe,  when 
he  pronounces  it  a  broad  plain. 


214  OHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Baptize  a  Baptism. 

Paul  says,  "  John  baptized  tl)c  baptism  of  repentance."  The 
Baptist  Version  feeling  that  the  phrase  "immersed  the  immer- 
sion of  repentance"  was  impracticable,  introduces  vnth — "im- 
mersed with  tiie  iinmersion  of  repentance;"  liow  much  better  this 
is  I  cannot  say  as  I  do  not  understand  it.  Some  might  be  dis- 
posed to  think,  that  it  would  be  truer  to  the  theory  to  translate 
"dipped  the  dipping  of  repentance,"  or  "  dipped  i<;i7/».  the  dipping 
of  repentance;"  but  to  all  except  to  the  initiated  these  transla- 
tions will  need  to  be  translated.  The  phraseology  of  Luke  seems 
to  be  parallel  to  the  Classic  phrase  lSd(puj  [idfj-ixa  Iap8iuvu6v  (Aris- 
tophanes), which  does  not  declare,  "  I  will  immerse  a  Sardian 
immersion,"  or,  "  1  will  dip  a  Sardian  dip,"  but,  "  I  will  dije  a 
Sardian  dye."  And  as  the  phrase  from  Aristophanes  indicates  a 
secondary  meaning  of  /Jarrw,  so  the  phrase  used  by  Paul  points 
to  a  secondary  meaning  oi  [ianTiZw.  As  ftd/i/ia  I'af/Scuvr/.ov  does  not 
express  a  dip  of  Sardis,  but  a  dyed  condition  (purple)  such  as 
Sardis  was  famous  for,  so  fidnTc<T;j.a  ixsTo.vi>ia^  does  not  express  a 
dij:)  of  repentance,  but  a  condition  such  as  repentance  effects, 
which  condition  is  a  spiritually  purified  condition,  as  tlie  Scrip- 
tures expressly  declare,  that  the  /?a7rriV/>.a  of  repentance  is  {elq 
a(pE(nv  (lixupTiwu)  into  the  remission  of  sins,  leaving  the  soul  which 
has  received  this  baptism  in  a  condition  of  unsullied  purity.  Just 
as  fidTzrw  received  its  colored  character  from  use  among  dyes,  so 
fiunrcZu}  receives  its  uncolored  character  by  use  among  purifica- 
tions. Just  as  lapdiavtxov  defines  f:idp./ia^  so  iJ-sTuvoiaq  answers  Paul's 
inquiry  Eiq  t\  l3d7:TCfT/j.a ;  and  defines  to  j3dnTciTiia''l(odvvou.  Bd/j./xa^ 
used  among  dyes,  expressed  a  thorough  change  of  condition  by 
some  infiuence  cai)able  of  coloring.  This  general  idea  was  limited 
and  delined  by  an  adjunct;  in  tlie  case  before  us  by  l\xf/du/.vixdv  = 
Si  purple  (lid/j./ia)  color.  />VirTtfl-//a,  used  among  purifications,  ex- 
presses a  thorough  change  of  condition  b}- some  infiuence  capable 
of  purifying.  This  general  idea  was  limited  and  defined  by  ad- 
juncts; thus  there  was  a  ftdTtri/y/m  'luuHauov^  a  Jewisii  baptism, 
which  was  by  heifer  ashes,  etc.,  which  was  a  real  ceremonial  puri- 
fication and  a  tyi)e  of  si)iritual  purification;  also,  a  fidTTTcrr/m  h 
Iheuimzi  'Aytu},  a  Iloly  Spirit  baptism,  which  was  a  real  spiritual 
purification  of  the  soul  by  Divine  power;  also,  a  iidizriaim  'Iwav^ou^ 
a  Johannic  baptism,  which  was  a  symbol  purification  giving  ritual 
visibility  to  the  real  i)urification  of  the  soul  b^'  the  Holy  Ghost; 


THE    BAPTISM    RECEIVED    BY    "THE    TWELVE."         215 

a  [idnri(rij.a  i-\  to*  ovo/iarc  ^  fr/uou  XpiffToo  =  £is  tu  ova/j.a  rou  liupiau  ^Itj/tou. 
a  purification  from  sin  by  faith.resting  (as  a  foundation)  ujjon  the 
name  of  Jesus  Ctirist  as  "tlie  Lamb  of  God  that  taketli  awa}'  the 
sin  of  the  world,"  or  (the  same  idea  expressed  under  another 
form),  by  entering  into  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  atoning  Redeemer, 
and  thus  becoming  penetrated  and  pervaded  with  his  sin-remit- 
ting power  ;  and,  still  farther,  a  fidTrriff/xa  i^  udaro';  xai  Ihshimroq^  a 
baptism  by  water  and  Spirit,  which  is  a  purification  of  body  and 
soul  by  water  impregnated  with  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Tliis  baptisvi  is  unknown  to  the  Scriptures.  It  is  of  Patristic 
origin  and  pervades  their  writings  and  theology.  We  will  meet 
with  it  hereafter. 

This  glance  at  the  various  relations  of  i3d-Ti(Tfj.a  makes  it  ob- 
vious, that  to  tlie  inquiry  Ei^  ti  jSdTrrcff/ia  liSanriffOrire ;  the  repl}!, 
'•'' El^  TO  'Iwavvoo  j3aTtTiffij.a^  into  the  baptism  of  John,^^  gives  an 
answer  equally  precise,  with  the  reply  to  the  question  Elz  r\  j3d,'j.ij.a 
ll3d<f.0-qT£ ;  into  what  dye  were  you  dipped  ?  We  were  dipped  into 
Sardian  dye.  Bdnrui  with  elq  r\  pdjiim  must,  I  think,  express  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  verb  (to  dip),  and  with  fSdiJ-jia  lapuiavLxov 
it  must  express  its  acquired  meaning  (to  dj'e),  the  eflTect  of  dip- 
ping into  a  dye.  How  absolutely'  the  primary  meaning  (to  dip) 
is  lost,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  this  Sardian  dye  was  effected  by 
heating  vnth  the  fists.  In  like  manner  (ia-ri'^ui  with  ek  ri  j3a7crt<TfMa 
must  be  understood  as  related  to  this  ideal  baptism  in  its  primary 
meaning ;  while  in  the  ver^'  diverse  construction  l^idTzziGs  fid-riaiia 
IxeTavoiaq,  it  must  be  understood  in  a  secondary  sense  (to  purify) 
secured  from  the  effect  of  the  ideal  baptism  of  repentance,  which 
is  {elq  diptaiv  aixapriiov)  into  the  remission  of  sins,  and  therefore,  of 
necessity,  purifying  in  its  nature. 

This  parallel  usage  shows  that  the  affinity  between  ,3a7ZTc!^u}  and 
pdr.rw  is  not  through  the  stem  which  dips;  but  through  that 
which  dyes  =  thoroughly  changes  condition  by  imparting  color ; 
while  [iaTtTiZui  thoroughly  changes  condition  by  imparting  some 
other  (uncolored)  influential  characteristic ;  under  Christianity 
such  characteristic  as  belongs  to  repentance,  remission  of  sins, 
and  a  crucified  Redeemer. 

THE    BAPTISSI    RECEIVED    BY    "THE    TWELVE." 

Water  is  not  mentioned  in  this  investigation  respecting  the 
baptism  received  by  these  Ephesian  twelve.     It  is,  however,  ex- 


216  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

eluded  again  and  again  from  the  position  of  receiving  element, 
by  the  express  declaration  that  this  position  was  filled  by  a  wholly 
different  element.  It  was  unnecessary  that  water  should  be  men- 
tioned. It  had  already  been  stated ;  it  was  uniformly  presented 
under  one  and  the  same  aspect,  that  of  instrumental  sj'mbol 
agency,  and  would,  as  such,  be  necessarily  supplied  ;  indeed,  this 
is  all  that  can  be  supplied ;  every  other  element  is  present,  the 
administrator,  the  subject,  the  ideal  element;  what  is  lacking  is 
the  agency ;  and  this  Luke  supplies  for  us  by  statement  else- 
where ;  and  thus  fully  equipped  these  twelve  "  (ij3anTi:;0rjf7av  vSaz  i 
tlq  TO  ovu;j.a  rou  A'uptvu  ' iTjffou)  were  baptized  with  water  into  the 
Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 


RITUAL   BAPTISM    OP    CRISPUS   AND    GAIUS   not    "  INTO   THE    NAME 

OF    PAUL." 

1  CORINTHIAKS  1  :  13-15. 

Eif  TO  bvojjia  Havlov  ifianTiad-rjTe  ;  .  .  .  ovSeva  v/nuv  kficnrTiaa,  el  fiy  TipiaKov 
KoX  Talov  :  'Iva  fxri  eIktj  ti^  on  to  £if  e/ibv  bvofia  k^anTLca. 

"  I  am  of  Paul.  .  .  Was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  or  were  ye  baptized  into 
the  name  of  Paul  ?  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you,  but  Crispus 
and  Gaius:  Lest  any  should  .say  that  I  had  baptized  into  mine  own  name." 

"  INTO    THE    NAME    OF    PAUL." 

•  This  is  the  last  case  of  ritual  baptism  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament  with  any  adjuncts  calculated  to  throw  light  upon  the 
nature  of  the  baptism.  It  gives  instruction  on  the  following 
points:  L  This  was  ritual  baptism.  It  could  not  be  a  baptism 
conferring  miraculous  gifts  ;  for  then  Paul  could  not  have  thanked 
God  that  he  had  not  conferred  such  baptism.  It  was  not  regen- 
erative baptism  ;  for  this  was  beyond  the  power  of  Paul  to  bestow. 
It  must  then  have  been,  what  all  the  facts  show  that  it  was,  ritual 
baptism. 

2.  Ritual  baptism  was  extended  and  perpetuated.  The  place 
where  this  rite  was  administered  was  Corinth,  a  city  of  Greece ; 
the  time  of  its  administration  was  twenty  or  more  years  after 
the  death  of  Christ. 

3.  The  persistent   and   sole   formula  expressive  of  Christian 


"into    the    name    of    PAUL."  217 

baptism  was  (e^c  to  ovo/za  too  Kuplou  VijffoD),  "  into  the  Name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus."  Peter,  in  the  first  sermon  preached  under  Chris- 
tianity, announced  the  baptism  (etc  aipsaiv  arxaprnuv  Itz\  rui  u'yofj.a-c 
/.  X),  "into  the  remission  of  sins  grounded  upon  the  Name  of 
Jesus  Christ;"  and  in  the  first  ritual  baptism  this  sentiment  is 
condensed  into  the  formula  "  (s't<;  ro  wop-a  too  Kupioo  ^ Irjcjou)^  into 
the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  The  subsequent  use  of  this  for- 
mula is  expressly  stated  (Acts  19:5),  and  no  other  is  so  stated  at 
any  time.  This  formula  was  clearly  before  the  mind  of  Paul  as 
shown  by  the  condemnatory  substitution  of  his  own  name  for  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

4.  As  to  the  meaning  of  this  formula.  To  be  baptized  (really 
or  ideally)  into  anything,  expresses  the  fact  that  the  baptized 
object  is  made  subject  to  the  controlling  power  or  assimilating 
influence  of  such  thing,  whatever  it  may  be.  Baptism  "  into  the 
name  of  Paul,"  therefore,  expresses  subjection  to  Paul's  influence 
as  a  Leader  and  Teacher.  \n  other  words,  induces  that  cry 
heard  at  Corinth — "  I  am  of  Paul  !  "  Baptism  into  the  Name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  expresses  subjection  to  his  power  and  influence 
as  "  Lord,"  to  rule  over,  and  as  "  Jesus,"  to  save  from  sins. 

5.  The  ellipsis  of  water.  The  doctrine  of  ellipsis  is,  that  that 
which  is  the  most  essential  requisite  in  any  transaction  may  be 
omitted,  on  the  ground  that  it  cannot  but  be  missed,  and  there- 
fore will  not  fail  to  be  supplied.  The  most  essential  requisite  in 
the  administration  of  Christian  ritual  baptism  \s  water.  Witliout 
this  the  Christian  rite  cannot  be  administered.  Therefore  when- 
ever it  is  stated,  that  ritual  baptism  has  been  administered  in 
any  case,  as  for  example  by  Paul  to  Crispus  and  Gains,  we 
know  that  water  was  used,  although  there  is  no  mention  of  it. 
When  Christian  baptism  was  first  instituted,  it  was  necessaiy  to 
make  express  statement  of  its  distinctive  character,  so  far  as  it 
diff'ered  from  that  of  John  and  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus  (John 
4:  1,  2).  And  this  was  done  by  declaring,  that  this  baptism  was 
no  longer  dq  psravoiav,  nor  e;-  aftfftv  dfiaprcut'^ — "  into  repentance  " 
— "  into  the  remission  of  sins  ; "  but  that  these  antecedent  bap- 
tisms were  merged  in  that  to  which  the}'  owed  their  origin,  and 
from  which  they  derived  all  their  value,  namely,  baptism  "  into 
the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  It  was  not  necessar^^  that  in  the 
announcement  of  Christian  baptism  there  should  be  a  renewed 
mention  of  water,  because  in  this  respect  there  was  no  change ; 
and,  therefore,  water  is  never  formally  mentioned  as  entering 


218  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

into  the  Christian  rite  ;  although  it  is  mentioned,  incidentally, 
twice— Acts  8:36;  10:46. 

The  same  imperative  necessity  which  makes  the  supply  of  the 
elliptically  absent  water  necessary,  makes  it  necessary,  that  it 
should  be  sui)plied  in  precisely  that  form  and  in  such  relation, 
as  it  is  furnished  to  us  by  inspiration.  That  form  is  without  ex- 
ception in  the  dative,  with  or  without  a  pi'eposition,  and  asso- 
ciated with  an  accusative  and  e;?-.  These  cases  do,  in  Classic 
Greek,  invariably  express  the  agency  by  which  a  baptism  is 
effected,  and  the  element  into  which  tlie  baptized  object  passes. 
We  so  interpret  them  and  with  the  same  invariableness,  in  Scrip- 
ture. We  know  negatively,  that  Crispus  and  Gaius  were  not 
baptized  {elq  vScup)  into  water,  because  there  is  no  such  statement 
to  be  found  anywhere  in  Scripture;  and  we  know  affirraativeljs 
that  they  were  baptized  "  (wVlarj  eis  to  wo/ia  mu  K.  /.)  with  vvater 
into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  because  this  is  the  distinct  and 
exclusive  statement  of  the  IIol^^  Spirit  in  the  case  of  such  like 
baptisms. 

6.  The  comparative  value  of  ritual  baptism.  Paul  neither  be- 
lieved that  ritual  baptism  had  power  to  regenerate  the  soul,  nor 
that  the  manner  of  using  the  water  in  the  rite  constituted  the 
sine  qua  non  of  church  membership,  and  of  the  right  to  sit  down 
at  the  Lord's  table,  nor,  a  discriminating  test  of  obedience  to 
God,  else  he  never  could  have  said^"  Christ  sent  me  not  to  bap- 
tize, but  to  preach  the  Gospel." 

Corollary.  To  preach  a  ritual  baptism  is  not  to  preach  the 
Gospel ;  and,  a  fortiori,  to  preach  a  modal  use  of  water  is  not  to 
preach  the  Gospel. 

All  the  cases  of  ritual  baptism,  which  could  throw  light  upon 
its  nature  or  administration,  have  now  been  passed  in  review. 
The  result  is,  that  there  is  not  one  fact  which  exemplifies,  not 
one  word  which  inculcates,  a  dipping  into  vvater;  but  on  the  con- 
trar}^,  to  teach  and  to  practice  a  dipping  into  water  as  Christian 
baptism  is  an  abandonment  of  the  baptism  taught  in  the  word  of 
God,  which  is,  "with  water,  into  the  Name  of  the  Lohd  Jesus." 


CHRISTIC  BAPTISM:    RITUAL  BAPTISM  OF  HOUSE- 
HOLDS WITH  THEIR  FAMILY  HEAD. 

KITUAL    BAPTISM    OP    HOUSEHOLDS   WITH   WATER   INTO    THE 
NAME    OP    THE    LORD    JESUS. 

Acts  16  :  15. 

'Df  6e  £0anTia6T/,  koI  6  olKog  avTrjQ. 

*'  And  when  she  was  baptized  and  her  household." 

Acts  16  :  33. 

Kat  kfiaTTTtadrj  avrbg  Kal  ol  avrov  Travreg  TrapaxiiVfJ-d. 
"And  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway." 

1  Cor.  1  :  16. 

''E^aiTTiaa  de  Kal  tov  '^T£(l>avd  oIkov. 
"And  I  baptized,  also,  the  household  of  Stephanas." 

HOUSEHOLD   BAPTISM. 

The  peculiarity  of  these  baptisms,  as  compared  with  the  bap- 
tisms previously  considered,  is,  that  the  household  is  baptized 
with  the  believing  Family  head. 

This  fact  is  so  distinctly  and  so  repeatedly  stated  as  to  admit 
of  no  question.  The  reason  for  this  fact,  namely,  the  baptism  of 
a  household  with  its  family  Head,  is  questioned.  Some  say  the 
reason  of  this  baptism  is  stated  as  well  as  the  fact,  in  that  it  is 
declared  to  be  '■''his  household,"  '■'■her  household."  The}^  say  there 
was  a  necessity  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  in  recognizing 
the  sovereignty  of  God  over  him  and  his,  and  the  grace  of  God  in 
Christ  toward  him  and  his,  he  should  make  recognition  of  such 
sovereignty  and  grace,  both  as  an  individual  and  as  a  family  Head, 
in  the  way  appointed  by  God.  The  same  condition  of  things  which 
makes  it  fit  and  necessary  that  he  should,  by  Christian  baptism, 
acknowledge  his  subjection  to  the  divine  sovereignty  and  his  need 
of  divine  grace,  made  it  imperative  that  he  should  make  like 
acknowledgment  for  "  all  his."  It  is  undeniable,  that  the  rights  ' 
of  God  as  a  sovereign  extend  over  an  infant  child ;  it  is  equally 

(  219  ) 


220  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

undeniable,  that  the  redemption  of  Christ  is  needed  by  an  infant 
child ;  but  an  infant  child  is  unable  personally  to  make  acknowl- 
edgment of  these  great  truths  and  their  correspondent  duties ; 
and  if  there  be  none  whose  duty  it  is  to  make  such  acknowledg- 
ment, and  assume  such  responsibilities  as  grow  out  of  this  acknowl- 
edgment, then  the  rights  of  God  and  the  spiritual  interests  of 
this  child  must  pass  into  abeyance.  But  neither  the  claim  of  divine 
sovereignty,  nor  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  redemption,  becomes 
inoperative  through  infancy.  That  sovereignty  which  an  infant 
cannot  recognize,  the  parent  is  bound  to  recognize  as  it  extends 
over  his  child  ;  and  whatever  is  necessarj'  to  qualify  that  child  to 
understand  this  divine  claim,  and  to  respond  to  its  obligations,  is 
an  imperative  duty  for  the  parent  to  perform.  God  makes  this 
claim  and  requires  this  duty:  "  As  the  soul  of  the  father,  so,  also, 
the  soul  of  the  son  is  mine."  These  truths  underlie  the  languaffe 
of  these  baptisms,  "/ler  household,"  "  all  /izs,"  and  constitute  the 
underlying  reason,  why  households  were  baptized  with  their  family 
Heads.  The  relation  between  the  household  and  the  family  Head, 
(making  one  family)  and  of  both  (in  their  unity)  to  God,  is  the 
reason,  on  the  face  of  these  Scripture  statements,  for  household 
baptism.  These  are  divine  reasons,  and  are  confirmed  by  a  broader 
view  of  the  family  as  historically  presented  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  Family  is  a  Divine  Institution. 

The  origin,  character,  and  true  value  of  the  F'amily  are  elements 
of  essential  value  in  determining  the  ground  and  obligation  of 
Household  baptism.  Fortunately  those  who  are  interested  in  this 
question  admit,  that  the  Family  is  a  divine  institution.  They  also 
admit,  that  the  Family  is  from  the  beginning,  and  that  the  whole 
human  race  is  one  vast  outgrowth  of  a  single  Family  head.  Within 
this  world  family  there  are  a  thousand  times  ten  thousand  other 
families  of  miniature  dimension,  but  with  identically  the  same 
constitution.  These  families,  more  or  less  conformed  to  their 
divine  original,  fill  the  earth.  It  is  obvious,  that  this  world  is 
founded  on  a  family  constitution.  Its  constitutional  unit  is  not 
an  independent,  dissociate  individuality,  but  a  conjunct  and  asso- 
ciate individuality  in  and  under  the  Famih'  constitution. 

Family  Unity. 

The  rights,  duties,  and  obligations  of  the  individual  man  or 
woman  are  essentially  modified  and  controlled  bj'^  their  entering 


FAMILY    UNITY.  221 

upon  that  relation  of  twain-unity  divinel}'  established  in  marriage. 
These,  also,  are  modified,  varied,  and  deepened  by  the  establish- 
ment of  parental  relations,  the  existence  and  nature  of  which  are 
of  God.  The  child  belongs,  in  a  profound  and  wonderful  sense, 
to  the  father  who  has  begotten  it  and  to  the  mother  of  whom  it 
has  been  born.  And  they  are  jointly  and  severally  responsible, 
in  the  same  profound  and  wonderful  sense,  for  the  unfolding  of 
that  life  in  holiness  and  to  the  glory  of  God.  It  is  a  multiplication 
of  their  own  life;  and  God  gives  to  them  a  vast,  if  not  an  abso- 
lute, control  over  it,  and  holds  them  responsible  for  the  exercise 
of  such  control.  There  is  a  unit  life  as  well  as  a  multiplied  life 
in  the  family;  and  there  is  an  immeasurable  responsibility  for 
that  life  of  "/ler  household,"  and  of  "all  Ais,"  resting  on  every 
family  Head.  The  idea,  that  the  claims  of  God  as  a  Sovereign 
and  the  grace  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  come  to  a  famil}^  Head  with 
the  same  limitations  to  naked  individuality  as  they  come  to  one 
who  stands  alone  in  the  world,  is  ineffably  absurd. 

God  has  always  dealt  with  the  family  as  a  unity  in  its  Head. 
Therefore,  the  whole  human  famil}^  is  what  it  is  to-day — "  As  by 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world  and  death  by  sin;"  "As  by 
the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation." 
God  covenants  with  the  family  Head  including  "his"  as  a  unit3^ — 
"Noah  was  a  just  man  and  walked  with  God.  With  thee  will  I 
establish  my  covenant ;  and  thou  shalt  come  into  the  ark,  thou, 
and  th}^  sons,  and  thy  wife,  and  thy  son's  wives,  with  thee.  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  Noah,  Come  thou  and  all  thy  house  into  the 
ark ;  for  thee  have  I  seen  to  be  righteous  before  me  in  this  gen- 
eration." Thus  "  his  house  "  was  saved  through  its  family  Head. 
Again,  God  covenants  with  Noah  as  the  second  head  of  the  human 
family,  and  with  his  sons  as  subordinate  family  Heads — "And 
God  spake  unto  Noah,  and  to  his  sons  with  him,  saying.  And  I, 
behold  I,  will  establish  my  covenant  with  you  and  with  your  seed 
after  youJ^  God  includes  in  his  fiiraily  covenant  children  before  lx^ 
they  are  born. 

The  angels  said  unto  Lot,  "  Hast  thou  here  any  besides  ?  son- 
in-law,  and  thy  sons,  and  thy  daughters,  and  whatsoever  thou  hast 
in  the  city,  bring  them  out  of  this  place."  The  salvation  of  Lot's 
family  turns  solely  on  their  being  "his."  Thej^  may  have  no  im- 
mediate personal  covenant  relation  with  God,  yet  they  are  beloved 
for  their  father's  sake,  and  embraced  in  covenant  blessings  with 
the  Family  head. 


222  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Family  Headship. 

Authorit3'  is  committed  by  God  to  tlie  family  Head — Gen.  18:19, 
"  I  know  Abraham  that  he  will  command  his  children  and  his 
household  after  him."  Dent.  32  :  46,  "  Ye  shall  command  your 
children  to  observe  to  do  all  the  words  of  this  law." 

Obligation  is  laid  upon  children  to  respect  this  authority — Exod. 
20  :  12,  ^'- Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother."  Ephes.  6:1,"  Chil- 
dren, obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord." 

Responsibilit}'  accompanies  this  authority — Deut.  4:9,"  Teach 
them  to  thy  sons  and  thy  son's  sons."  Prov.  22  :  6,  "  Train  up 
a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go."  Ephes.  6:4,  "  Ye  fathers, 
bring  uj?  your  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord." 

Parents  must  enforce  God's  law  in  their  households — Exod. 
20  :  8,  "  Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  hol}^ ;  Six  days 
shalt  thou  labor  and  do  all  thy  work :  But  the  seventh  day  is  the 
Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God :  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work, 
THOU,  nor  THY  son,  nor  thy  daughter.''^ 

The  authority  vested  in  a  family  Head  and  the  responsibility 
under  it  is  grandly  announced  by  Joshua  to  all  the  family  heads 
of  Israel  when  they  were  called  upon  to  choose  whom  they  would 
worship  as  their  God — '^  As  for  me  and  my  house  we  will  serve 
the  Lord."  Joshua  was  a  ruler  over  God's  people  and  a  ruler,  in 
God's  name  and  for  God's  glory,  over  his  own  house.  "A  bishop 
must  be  one  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house,  having  his  children 
in  subjection  "  (1  Tim.  3  :  4). 

Promises  are  given  to  encourage  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  duties 
of  family  Headship — Genesis  17:1,  "I  will  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee  .  .  .  to  be  a  God 
u7ito  THEE  and  to  THY  SEED  after  thee." 

Peter  introduces  Christianity  by  a  reiteration  of  this  promise 
embracing  the  family  Head  and  household — Acts  2  :  39,  "  The 
promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children." 

Paul  renews  it  to  the  Jailer — "  Believe  and  thou  shalt  be  saved 
and  T[iY  housed  "By  faith  Noah  prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving 
of  HIS  house  "  (Heb.  11:7).  And  every  head  of  a  family  who  does 
by  faith  receive  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  does  thereby  lay  hold  of 
promises  full  of  salvation  to  his  house.  Therefore  the  Lord  Jesus 
says  of  the  believing  Zaccheus,  "  To-day  is  salvation  come  to  this 
house  forasmuch  as  he  also  is  a  son  of  Abraham  "  (Luke  19  :  9). 


ANOTHER    VIEW.  223 

For  these  and  suchlike  reasons  we  believe,  that  the  language 
in  which  these  household  baptisms  is  expressed  does  declare,  not 
merel}^  the  historical  fact  that  such  baptisms  did  take  place,  but 
also,  expressly  and  pointedly,  the  ground  on  which  they  do  di- 
vinely rest;  namely,  the  unity  of  life  between  the  family  Head 
and  its  members  making  it  obligatory  upon  the  Head  to  receive 
God's  commands  and  promises  alike  for  his  family  as  for  him- 
self ;  and  to  recognize  the  obligation,  to  consecrate  that  unity 
of  family  life  to  the  glory  of  God  laboring  for  its  unfolding  under 
the  promises,  in  the  beauty  of  holiness. 

Another  view. 

Another  view  of  these  baptisms  declares,  that  the  statement  of 
famil}'^  Headship  on  the  one  part,  and  of  Household  membership 
on  the  other  part,  is  a  mere  record  of  historical  facts  wholl}^  out- 
side of  the  baptism,  and  in  no  wise  entering  into  the  character  of 
the  baptism  or  affecting  its  administration.  Baptism  is  declared 
to  be  limited  to  an  individual  personality  in  the  exercise  of  repent- 
ance and  faith,  and  therefore  restricted  to  an  adult,  acting  with 
independent  individuality.  This  theory  denies  family-  unity  under 
the  Law  of  God,  and  rejects  family  life  from  the  kiugdom  of  God. 

We  object  to  this  view  as  grounded  in  a  misconception  of  scrip- 
tural baptism  ;  as  presenting  a  fundamentally  erroneous  view  of 
the  relations  of  the  human  race  to  God  the  Creator  and  to  God  in 
Christ  the  Redeemer ;  and  also  as  dividing  the  kingdom  of  God 
against  itself,  making  God's  constitution  of  the  church  antagon- 
istic to  God's  constitution  of  the  human  race. 

1.  Baptism  with  water  is  grounded  in  the  blood  baptism  of 
Christ.  The  blood  of  Christ  secures  through  the  Holy  Ghost  the 
regeneration  of  the  soul,  the  remission  of  sins,  and  reconciliation 
with  God.  Infants  need  these  blessings  as  trul}'  as  adults  need 
them.  Infants  can  receive  these  blessings  as  trul}^  as  adults  can 
receive  them.  Whenever  infant  or  adult  receives  them,  they  are 
the  gift  of  God.  In  the  bestowal  of  these  gifts  God  may  be  moved 
solel}''  by  his  own  sovereign  grace,  or  by  the  prayer  of  faith  in  the 
name  of  his  Son.  This  prayer  of  faith  may  be  offered  by  the  adult 
for  himself;  the  infant  cannot  offer  such  prayer  for  himself.  Is 
the  infant  therefore  excluded  from  the  Cross  of  Christ  (in  its 
power  through  the  Holy  Ghost  to  regenerate,  to  remit  sin,  and  to 
reconcile  to  God)  by  hopeless  exclusion  from  the  prayer  of  faith? 


224  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

By  no  means.  All  the  blessings  of  the  prayer  of  faith  are  open 
to  the  new-born  babe.  The  parent  (whose  life  has  passed  into  that 
infant  life)  may  and  is  under  infinite  obligation  to  pray  for  that 
new-born  soul  as  for  his  own  soul.  "As  the  soul  of  the  father  so 
also  the  soul  of  the  son  is  mine."  He  may  and  he  is  bound  to  pray 
for  the  second  birth  of  that  infant  soul,  for  the  remission  of  that 
sin  which  proceeds  from  being  born  of  his  flesh,  and  for  the  eternal 
reconciliation  with  God  in  his  holiness  of  this  new-born  babe,  in 
the  Name  and  for  the  sake  of  the  babe  of  Bethlehem,  the  holy 
child  Jesus,  the  crucified  of  Calvary !  What  a  parent  may  pray 
for  to  be  given  to  his  child,  may  be  granted  to  a  child,  in  answer 
to  a  parent's  prayer.  Now  if  the  water  in  liaptism  be  the  seal  of 
blessings  promised  in  answer  to  faith  in  the  promises  of  God  in 
Christ,  and  if  those  blessings  are  available  for  infants,  and  if 
parents  are  required  of  God  to  offer  prayer,  believing  in  those 
promises,  for  their  infant  children,  then  the  seal  of  those  promises 
belongs  to  infant  children  through  parental  faith.  "When  the 
Bible  shuts  out  infants  from  the  richest  blessings  of  the  Cross, 
and  precludes  parents  from  praying  in  their  behalf  for  those 
blessings,  then,  but  not  till  then,  men  maj'  shut  them  out  from 
the  seal  of  those  blessings  which  belong  through  covenant  grace 
alike  to  parents  and  their  children. 

Household  relation  to  God. 

The  idea  that  the  human  race  stands  related  to  God  as  an 
aggregation  of  individuals,  on  an  exclusive  basis  of  personal 
responsibility,  is  an  error  absolute  and  profound.  Every  page  of 
Scripture  and  of  history  condemns  it;  every  man's  observation 
and  experience  refutes  it.  It  is  doubl}^  disproved  by  the  Bible 
declaration — "As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made 
alive."'  Personal  responsibility  is  a  truth  most  real  and  oppres- 
sive by  reason  of  the  responsil)ilities  which  gather  around  it.  But 
personal  responsibility,  as  tliat  of  mere  individualism,  is  not  the 
only  responsibility  in  our  world.  The  whole  human  race,  by 
reason  of  a  common  life  and  death  (the  web  and  woof  of  its  uni- 
versal existence)  has  a  marvellous  personality,  together  with  its 
no  less  marvellous  responsibilities.  That  there  is  a  common  life 
in  every  household  is  a  simple  fact  beyond  denial.  To  den^^  that 
that  household  life  lias  a  head,  and  that  in  that  head  vests  a  house- 
hold responsibility  which  includes  every  living  member  of  such 


HOUSEHOLD    BAPTISMS.  225 

household,  is  to  kick  against  the  pricks  sharpened  by  God's  truth, 
and  made  rigid  by  the  experience  of  ages.  Individual  life  and 
individual  pei'sonal  responsibility  are  not  more  truly  or  more  fall}- 
taught  in  the  Bible,  than  are  household  life  and  family  responsi- 
bility under  the  household  head. 

Was  it  in  illustration  of  mere  individual  responsibility  that  the 
sword  of  the  destroying  angel  was  drawn  in  Eg3'pt  to  smite  the 
first-born  of  every  house?  What  was  the  personal  act  of  impeni- 
tence or  unbelief  which  gave  individual  responsibility  to  that  first- 
born babe  whose  birth-cry  was  merged  in  its  death-wail  on  that 
fearful  night?  Or,  did  that  Messenger  of  wrath  cross  the  family 
thresholds  of  Eg3'pt  slaying  the  first-born  (and  wounding  in  that 
deathstroke  every  heart  of  the  household)  without  responsibility 
for  sill  against  God  resting  anywhere  ?  Was  it  in  illustration 
of  that  mere  individual  responsibility  which  knows  no  father,  no 
mother,  no  son,  no  daughter,  that  the  command  was  given  to  the 
household  Heads  of  Israel  to  sprinkle  their  family  door-posts  with 
the  blood  of  the  Lamb  in  order  that  the  first-born  of  the  house 
might  be  saved  from  death  ?  Where  is  the  personal  faith  and 
obedience  of  that  babe  resting  on  its  Mother^s  bosom  developed  in 
that  act  of  blood-sprinkling?  Is  the  responsibility  of  that  act  (on 
which  life  and  death  are  suspended)  laid  over  upon  that  uncon- 
scious babe  or  upon  the  family  Head  ? 

Can  such  cases  (abounding  everywhere  in  the  Bible  and  super- 
abounding  in  ever}^  age  under  the  providential  rule  of  God)  be 
met  by  the  doctrine  of  a  naked  individual  responsibility  ?  The 
wailings  of  the  households  of  Egypt  over  their  dead  children,  and 
the  jo}^  in  the  households  of  Israel  that  the  blood  of  the  Lamb, 
sprinkled  by  the  obedience  and  faith  of  their  Household  Heads, 
HAS  saved  their  CHILDREN  who  could,  personally,  neither  obey  nor 
believe,  alike  reject  the  doctrine.  This  doctrine  is  repudiated, 
and  the  doctrine  of  household  life,  and  the  responsibility  of  house- 
hold Headship  to  hear  the  command  and  promise  of  God  for  those 
who  are  sharers  of  this  life,  is  established  as  an  abiding  and  uni- 
versal truth  by  the  command — "Ye  shall  observe  tins  thing  for 
an  ordinance  to  thee  and  to  thy  sous  forever.  And  it  shall  come 
to  pass,  when  your  children  shall  say  unto  3^ou,  What  mean  ye  by 
this  service?  that  ye  shall  say.  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's 
passover,  who  passed  over  the  houses  of  the  children  of  Israel  in 
Egypt,  when  he  smote  the  Egyptians,  and  delivered  our  houses  " 
(Exod.  12:24-27). 

15 


226  CHRISTIC    BAPTI.SM. 

Litlle  children  of  the  household  symbolly  redeemed  by  the  blood 
of  sjor inkling  through  the  faith  and  obedience  op  the  family 
HEAD,  was  the  truth  written  in  blood  and  taught  in  every  household 
of  Israel  for  a  thousand  and  a  half  thousand  years,  even 
until  the  typified  Lamb  came  and  by  the  shedding  of  his  own 
blood,  confirmed  this  great  truth  of  the  j^^^st  and  commanded  that 
it  should  be  preached  at  Pentecost  and  thenceforward,  forever,  that 
"the  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children." 

Another  illustrative  case  is  found  in  the  baptism  of  all  the 
families  of  Israel  (parents  and  children  together)  "  into  Moses." 
The  demand  made  of  Phai'aoh  was,  that  Israel  should  go  out  of 
Egypt  by  families.  He  was  willing  that  the  adults  should  go,  but 
not  with  the  "  little  ones."  But  the  God  of  the  family  constrained 
him  to  grant,  at  last,  the  permission.  Now,  on  whom  did  the 
responsibility  of  this  great  movement,  carrying  these  families 
out  of  the  kingdom  of  Pharaoh  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  rest  ? 
Was  it  the  act  of  these  "  little  ones,"  or  of  their  family  Heads  ? 

Never  was  there  such  a  procession  of  families  going  (as  Paul 
(1  Cor.  10:2)  tells  us)  on  their  way  to  baptism.  There  were  a 
half  million,  more  or  less,  families.  It  is  not  doubtful,  I  presume, 
whether  there  were  any  children  in  these  families  or  hot.  There, 
was  quite  a  number  of  "  little  ones."  And  just  as  Lydia  and  her 
household,  and  the  Jailer  and  all  his,  were  baptized  together,  so 
these  parents  and  their  households  received  one  and  the  same 
baptism.  It  is  true,  that  while  they  "  went  down  to  the  water  " 
(and  there  was  so  "  much  water  "  that  a  thousand  Jordans  and 
Enons  might  have  been  swallowed  up  in  it)  still,  it  was  not  used 
for  dipping.  And  while  we  reject  the  theory's  conceit  of  a 
"dry  baptism"  in  the  Red  Sea,  we  are  happy  (so  long  as  there 
are  any  who  like  Pharaoh  would  send  parents  out  to  baptism 
without  their  "  little  ones  ")  to  remind  them,  that  God  would  not 
allow  that  to  be  separated  which  He  had  joined  together,  and 
would  gently  indicate  the  argumentum  ad  hominem  which  this 
cobajytism  of  a  half  million  parents  and  children  "  into  Moses  " 
(type  of  "  the  Coming  One  ")  puts  into  our  hands.  When  God 
would  establish  a  visible  kingdom  and  churcli  he  rejects  the 
Pharaonic  individualism  and  demands  his  own  Family  constitu- 
tion. A  brief  glance  at  one  more  fact,  and  I  pass  from  this 
phase  of  the  error  which  destroys  family'  life  and  repudiates 
family  Headship  as  ordained  of  God  with  authoritative  and  re- 
sponsible action  under  divine  command  and  promise.     When  the 


THE    FAMILY    REJECTED    FROM    THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD.     227- 

antitype  Passover  Lamb  bad  come,  and  his  precious  blood  was 
freely  offered  for  the  salvation  of  parents  and  their  children  (not 
less  broadly  efficacious  surely  than  the  blood  of  the  type  lamb) 
Jewish  parents  refused  it — "  All  the  people  said,  His  blood  be  on 
us  and  on  our  children.''^  Parents  rejected  "  Christ  our  Passover  " 
for  themselves  and  their  children.  Was  there  any  efficacious 
power  in  that  rejection  by  parents  ?  Has  there  not  been  a  drawn 
sword  (reddened  with  blood)  over  the  houses  of  those  "  parents 
and  their  children  "  these  eighteen  hundred  years  in  consequence 
of  that  rejecting  imprecation  ?  Are  not  they  presumptuously 
bold  who  in  view  of  such  facts  (a  few  among  others  numerous  as 
the  stai's)  do  deny,  that  there  is  a  Family  life  immediately  and 
responsibly  related  through  the  Family  Head  to  God  in  his  com- 
mandments and  promises,  ordinances  and  judgments  ?  Are  they 
who  refuse  the  Symbol  of  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  for  their  chil- 
dren, wiser  than  would  have  been  the  Parents  of  Israel  had  they 
said,  "  This  sprinkling  hij  us  can  do  our  children  no  good ;  they 
cannot  repent,  they  cannot  believe,  they  cannot  obey,  they  can- 
not understand  anything  about  it ;  WE  will  not  observe  such  a 
SERVICE  "  ?  If  Israel's  parents  had  said,  "  Our  act^  our  obedience^ 
OVR  faith,  can  do  our  children  no  good,"  would  there  not  have 
been  lamentation  and  weeping  over  the  dead  in  all  such  homes  on 
the  morrow  ? 

TJie  Family  rejected  from  the  kingdom  of  God. 

The  doctrine  that  the  kingdom  of  God  =  the  Church,  is  made 
up  solely  of  individuals  on  the  basis  of  a  personal  repentance 
and  faith,  without  recognition  or  provision  for  the  relation  of 
parent  and  child  in  famil3r  w^it}',  any  more  than  for  the  relation 
of  a  lawyer  to  his  clients,  of  a  physician  to  his  patients,  or  a 
merchant  to  his  customers,  is  a  doctrine,  which  the  Lord  of  that 
kingdom  rejects  on  the  ground  of  that  folly  and  ruin  which  must 
be  the  portion  of  "  a  kingdom  divided  against  itself." 

That  the  constitution  of  this  world  is  divine,  will  be  admitted 
by  all  who  believe  that  there  is  a  God.  That  the  constitution  of 
the  human  race  has  its  fundamental  element  in  the  Family  Insti- 
tution and  not  in  the  individual  man  will  be  admitted  by  every 
rational  being.  That  the  strongest,  the  tenderest,  and  the  most 
influential  ties  bind  parent  and  offspring  together  under  divine 
constitution,  the  brute  creation  would  testify,  if  men  should  deny. 
That  moral  duties  and  responsibilities  inhere  in  the  relation  of 


228  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

parent  and  child,  making  the  parent  responsible  (who  shall  fix 
the  limits?)  for  the  moral  wellbeing  of  the  child,  none  can  ra- 
tionally deny,  who  admit  the  moral  natnre  of  the  new-born  babe 
and  the  claim  of  God — "  all  souls  are  mine." 

Now,  from  this  kingdom,  under  a  Family  constitution,  God  has 
by  sin  been  rejected.  And  he  has  declared  his  purpose  to  over- 
throw his  enemies  and  to  re-establish  his  kingdom — "  Every  knee 
shall  bow  to  me ;"  "  Out  of  the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings 
thou  hast  ordained  praise."  The  doctrine  under  consideration 
declares,  that  God  will  not  re-establish  this  kingdom;  but  will  set 
up  another  kingdom  under  a  radically  diverse  constitution,  from 
which  family  life  shall  be  rejected  and  a  solitary  individualism  be 
substituted.  There  would,  thus,  be  two  kingdoms  of  God  in  the 
world  ;  the  one  having  the  Family  Institution  as  its  controlling 
feature,  and  the  other  refusing  to  give  the  Family  institution  any 
admission.  "  If  Satan  cast  out  Satan,  Satan's  kingdom  cannot 
stand."  If  God's  Family  be  cast  out  of  God's  kingdom  the  re- 
sult remains  to  be  developed.  There  has  been  no  trial  of  such 
evisceration.  The  church  for  five  thousand  years  has  accepted 
this  as  the  divine  Constitution  of  the  human  race,  nor  has  she 
ever  supposed  that  God  has  set  up  another  kingdom  radically 
antagonistic  to  his  own  original  kingdom.  It  does  not,  however, 
remain  to  be  shown,  that  no  nation  or  community  organized  on  a 
basis  rejecting  or  subverting  the  divine  Institution  of  the  Famil3\ 
can  stand.  This  has  abundantly  been  proved.  Throughout 
heathenism  generally  the  family  is  in  ruins  ;  and  the  moral  ruin 
is  as  abounding.  China  has  a  singular  history  both  as  to  per- 
manence and  as  to  regard  for  the  family.  Mohammedanism  has 
substituted  the  harem  for  the  family.  France,  at  her  influential 
centres,  is  largeh'^  destitute  of  family  life;  history  declares  the 
result.  Romanism  receives  individual  men  and  women  into  her 
monasteries,  and  nunneries,  and  priesthood,  and  rejects  the 
family;  the  result  is  on  record.  Communism,  Fourierism, 
Shakerism,  Mormonism,  reject  or  subvert  the  family;  and  the 
balance-wheel  of  permanence,  and  the  germ  of  development  and 
moral  blessing  is  gone. 

They  who  are  attempting  to  build  up  a  kingdom  in  God's  name 
of  individual  men  and  women,  rejecting  from  it  the  Family  In- 
stitution, have  been  engaged  in  the  task  too  short  a  time  and 
their  piety  is  too  much  better  than  their  logic,  to  show  the  natu- 
ral and  fully  developed  fruit. 


THE    FAMILY    REJECTED    FROM    THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD.     229 

Should  a  father  and  mother,  with  their  newly  born  babe,  appear 
before  the  custodians  of  such  an  organization,  and  ask  admission 
into  the  Church,  the  visible  kingdom  of  God,  the  answer  must  be: 
"You  can  be  received  because  3'ou  can  repent  and, believe;  but 
there  is  no  provision  for  the  impenitent  and  the  unbelieving." 
But  our  babe  has  not  performed  one  act  of  impenitence  or  origi- 
nated one  act  of  unbelief.  "That  is  true;  but  he  must  personally 
repent  and  believe  or  he  cannot  come  into  the  kingdom  of  the 
gospel;  'Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you;'  'He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned.'  Your  child  is  a  child  of  the  Devil."  Is  our 
babe  under  the  curse  of  the  Law  without  any  personal  act  of  his 
but  solely  by  the  act  of  his  parents  and  his  birth  from  them,  and 
yet  incapable  of  being  i-eceived  into  the  kingdom  of  the  gospel  by 
their  act,  acknowledging  the  sovereign  right  of  God  in  him,  the 
commands  of  God  laid  upon  us  for  him,  confessing  his  need  of 
cleansing  by  the  blood  of  Christ  the  Redeemer,  and  accepting  v/ith 
adoring  faith  the  promises  "made  unto  parents  and  their  chil- 
dren," and  holding  him  forth  by  the  prayei*  of  faith  to  be  received 
into  a  Saviour's  arms?  "Your  child  is  under  the  covenant  of 
DEATH  as  your  child  ;  but  he  is  not  under  the  covenant  of  life  as 
your  child.  No  provision  is  made  in  the  gospel  for  the  salvation 
of  children  ivith  their  parents.''''  Will  you,  then,  receive  us  as 
PARENTS?  "No,  we  cannot.  When  we  reject  your  child  as  your 
child  received  from  God  to  be  nurtured,  trained,  taught  in  his 
kingdom  for  his  glorj',  ive  reject  the  family  in  all  its  elements  and 
therefore  cannot  receive  you  into  the  kingdom  of  God  as  Parents, 
Father  and  Mother.  We  have  no  fathers  and  mothers,  or  sons 
'and  daughters,  in  our  kingdom.  And  if  your  child  (now  unpro- 
vided for  and  left  out  in  the  kingdom  of  Satan  because  he  cannot 
repent  and  believe)  should  live  loi^  enough  to  repent  and  believe, 
he  could  not  come  into  the  kingdom  as  your  child ;  and  when  in 
it,  he  could  not  he  related  to  you  as  your  child  under  the  laws  of 
the  kingdom,  but  only  as  an}^  other  individual  believer."  Well, 
then,  we  will  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  as  husband  and  wife.  In 
God's  name,  and  by  God's  ordinance,  we  twain  have  been  made 
one.  Marriage,  no  doubt,  is  a  part  of  the  law  of  God's  kingdom. 
"  No,  it  is  not.  The  only  elements  which  can  be  considered  in 
receiving  into  the  kingdom  of  God  is  individualism,  not  twain- 
unity  any  more  than  family  unity.  We  cannot  recognize  j^ou  in 
your  relation  as  husband  and  wife,  any  more  than  we  can  recog- 


230  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

nize  Richard  Roe  and  John  Doe  as  partners  in  business,  when 
they  come  together  to  be  received  into  the  kingdom.  Beside,  if 
we  were  to  recognize  Marriage  as  an  elemient  in  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  _yoj.i  entering  that  kingdom  as  husband  and  wife  should 
have  a  child  born  to  you,  ivhal  could  we  do  xvith  it?  We  would 
be  placed  in  the  dilemma  of  recognizing  Marriage,  and  Husband 
and  Wife,  as  belonging  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  canting  Hhe 
fruit  of  the  ivomb  ivhich  is  His  i^eward '  out  of  his  kingdom^  as 
unholy  /"  When  your  members  intermarry  do  they  marry  in  the 
kingdom?  "No;  Marriage  is  God's  institution,  it  is  celebrated 
b}'  God's  minister,  it  is  performed  in  God's  house,  it  is  sanctified 
by  pra3'er  in  God's  name,  hut  it  is  all  out  of  His  kingdom,  and  in 
the  world"  (Satan's  kingdom?)  "to  which  marriage  and  the 
FAMILY  BELONG  (!).  In  tlie  kingdom  of  God  there  is  nothing  but 
naked  individualism  (man,  woman),  repenting  and  believing." 

Does  not  the  Bible  address  Husbands  and  Wives  as  in  the 
kingdom  and  as  having  duties  to  perform  toward  each  other? 
"That  is  an  accident  not  entering  into  the  constitution  of  the 
kingdom  any  more  than  when  it  addresses  rich  men  and  poor  men, 
and  enjoins  just  weights  and  equal  balances.  Marriage  no  more 
enters  into  the  kingdom  of  God  than  does  a  commercial  partner- 
ship;  nor  the  Family  with  its  parents  and  children,  any  more 
than  an  Orphan  Asylum  with  its  Steward  and  Matron  and  orphan 
waifs." 

Thus  rejected.  Father  and  Mother  bear  away  their  babe,  sa^'ing, 
"  O  my  soul,  come  not  thou  into  their  secret;  unto  their  assembly, 
mine  honor,  be  not  thou  united." 

And  let  all  who  fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments  say — 
Amen. 

Besults. 

m 

1.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Brantley  is  reported,  at  a  meeting  of  Baptist 
ministers  in  Philadelphia,  as  saying:  "The  nation  has  no  God, 
and  the  Family  has  no  God  ;  individuals  only  have  a  God."  How 
much  better  is  this  destructive  logic  than  that  of  the  child  who 
destroys  his  watch  in  quest  of  the  individual  action  of  wlieel  and 
spring,  or  than  that  of  the  daughters  of  Pelias  who  anatomize 
the  body  of  tlieir  parent  into  its  individual  members  in  search  of 
a  higher  life,  1  do  not  know.  Why  this  logic  does  not  repudiate 
tile  reasoning  of  the  heathen  Menenius  Agrippa  and  of  the  chris- 
tian Paul  in  establishing  a  common  life  (with  its  peculiar  duties 


RESULTS.  231 

and  responsibilities)  as  belonging,  severally,  to  the  nation  and  to 
the  church,  I  cannot  tell.  Why  duty  and  responsibility  should 
attach  to  the  whole  man  (body,  soul,  and  spirit)  and  not  rather  a 
primitive  code  be  established  on  the  basis  of  the  act  of  Scagvola 
and  of  Cranmer  in  committing  the  guilty  hand  to  the  flames,  the 
friends  of  this  logic  must  show.  And  in  their  labors  must  be  in- 
cluded a  vindication  of  the  denial,  that  the  church  has  any  God, 
any  more  than  the  Nation  or  the  Family — the  baptism  of  all  indi- 
viduals "into  one  body"  with  Christ  as  its  head,  being  only  a 
pretty  rhetorical  conceit  to  be  resolved  into  the  plain  prose  of  a 
naked  individualism.  And  when  this  shall  have  been  all  done  it 
will  only  remain  to  show,  that  as  the  Famil}^  has  no  life  but  in  its 
individual  members  (and  on  each  separately  and  distinctively 
rests  duty  and  responsibility  without  duties  and  responsibilities 
from  community-  of  organic  life),  and  as  the  same  is  true  of  the 
Nation,  and  of  the  Church,  so,  it  is  true  of  the  Godhead  itself, 
that  in  it  there  is  no  common  divine  life  constituting  the  One  God, 
Jehovah,  but  merely  three  distinct  "individuals,"  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  chemical  logic  which  resolves 
all  forms  of  life  into  inorganic,  irresponsible,  independent  indi- 
vidualism, has  a  broad  application,  and  is  but  ill}'  adapted  to  that 
sexual  and  family  life  under  which  it  has  pleased  God  to  give  life 
to  the  human  race;  and  just  as  illy  adapted  to  tlie  constitution  of 
his  church  and  kingdom  as  revealed  through  all  his  Word. 

2.  The  terms  in  which  these  baptisms  are  expressed  indicate 
ownership  and  partnership  of  life,  with  all  consequent  share  in 
duties  and  responsibilities.  Lydia  was  baptized  and  "  hers  ;"  the 
Jailer  was  baptized  and  "his."  The  nature  of  the  ownership  is 
indicated  by  the  object ;  it  was  "  her  household,^'  "  all  his  house.^^ 
Parental  ownership  in  children  is  of  universal  acknowledgment. 
This  ownership  is  subordinate  only  to  the  divine  claim — "  all 
souls  are  mine."  The  rights  invested  in  parents  over  their  chil- 
dren are  bounded  and  enforced  b}'  the  inculcation  of  duty,  by  the 
imposition  of  command,  and  by  the  holding  forth  of  promises  all 
through  the  revelation  of  God.  This  language,  expressive  of 
Ijarental  right  in  and  over  their  children,  which  is  from  God,  and 
involves  eternal  responsibilities  toward  God,  the  doctrine  of  in- 
dividualism repudiates.  It  does,  also,  repudiate  the  language 
addressed  to  parents  for  their  encouragement — ("  The  promise  is 
to  you  and  to  your  children'''') — declaring  that  there  is  no  union 
hereby  established  between  parents  and  their  children  any  more 


232  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

than  between  those  who  are  not  parents  and  any  other  children. 
In  other  words,  that  the  promise  "to  parents  and  their  children," 
has  in  it  nothing  distinctive  for  parents  and  their  children,  but 
it  means,  indifferently,  anybody  and  everybody.  If  such  inter- 
pretation of  the  language  of  revelation  be  just,  then  we  have 
no  revelation.  If  this  doctrine  of  individualism  requires  such 
interpretation,  then  it  does  hereby  involve  itself  in  a  reductio  ad 
absurdum  =  its  Revelation  is  in  words  of  concealment  and  con- 
tradiction. 

3.  The  necessity  in  which  this  doctrine  is  involved  of  rejecting 
from  the  Gospel  kingdom,  the  family,  which  God  has  ordained  to 
be  the  integral  and  vital  element  of  the  human  race,  so,  evoking 
the  contradiction  both  of  sustaining  and  rejecting  the  family 
under  tlie  same  general  economy,  is,  if  possible,  still  more  absurd, 

4.  But  the  idea  that  the  kingdom  of  God  and  its  embodiment,  the 
visible  church,  is  founded  in  a  bare  individualism,  with  its  repent- 
ance and  faith,  must  confront  another  absurdit}'^,  which  is  the 
greatest  of  all,  namely,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  established 
for  the  recovery  of  a  lost  race  in  which  countless  millions  of  little 
children  were  an  essential  and  ever-present  element,  j'et,  in  that 
kingdom  there  was  no  provision  for  so  much  as  one  new-born  child 
to  be  received  into  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  was  so  constituted  as 
designedly  and  necessarily  to  exclude  iheni. 

The  human  imagination  never  conceived  an  incredibility  more 
incredible,  nor  an  absurdity  more  absurd.  If  the  Shaster  of 
Brahma,  or  the  Koran  of  Mohammed,  or  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
claimed  to  be  a  revelation  from  God  designed  to  mould  the  human 
race  after  the  will  of  God,  and  we  should  find,  that  the  one  suf- 
fered men  and  women  to  herd  together  as  individuals,  and  the 
other  converted  the  Family  into  a  seraglio,  and  the  third  substi- 
tuted polygamy  for  monogamy',  we  would  at  once  say,  "  This  alone 
stamps  the  claim  to  be  of  God  a  fiction  ;  and  the  work  to  be 
^or\Q  preposterous ;  because  God's  Family  Institution  is  rejected." 

Any  nation  which  shall  attempt  to  develop  a  national  life  in 
purity,  blessing,  and  abiding  prosperity  on  the  theory  of  individ- 
ualism (rejecting  the  family  and  its  little  ones  as  integral  and  vital 
elements  of  its  life)  will  soon  find  occasion,  with  the  great  Napo- 
leon, to  ask,  "  What  is  it  mars  the  development  of  our  national 
life  ?"  And  the  answer  will  be  that  of  the  noble  woman  who  re- 
plied, "  France  wants  mothers!" 

Any  Lodge  of  Free  Masons,  or  of  Odd  Fellows,  or  of  Good 


INCREDIBILITIES.  233 

Templars,  who  should  seek  to  mould  the  world  by  receiving  in- 
dividual men  and  women  into  their  conclaves,  rejecting  the 
Family,  would  enter  upon  a  fool's  errand. 

Any  man  or  body  of  men  who  should  offer  to  the  human  race 
a  constitution  purporting  to  be  that  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
for  the  human  race,  in  which  there  was  no  Family,  no  Husband, 
no  Wife,  no  Father,  no  Mother,  no  Son,  no  Daughter,  but  only 
individual  men  and  women,  would  assume  a  position  by  which 
they  placed  God  in  antagonism  with  Himself;  because  in  an- 
tagonism with  that  constitution  which  He  had  from  the  beginning 
given  to  the  human  race ;  and  would  offer  a  revolutionary  consti- 
tution ineffably  unadapted  to  the  human  race.  The  claim,  that 
such  a  constitution  is  from  God  is  antagonistic  to  God's  dealings 
with  our  race  from  the  beginning;  it  is  antagonistic  to  every 
page  of  his  revelation  in  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament ;  it 
is  as  ill-adapted  as  it  must  be  ineffective  to  master  the  human 
race,  as  it  is  in  ever}^  respect  essentially  incredible  and  absurd. 
No  amount  of  proof  can  make  it  credible  or  bring  it  within  the 
bounds  of  what  is  rational. 

This  prodigious  error  the  theory  has  taken  into  its  fellowship. 

Incredibilities. 

Dr.  Carson  not  only  rejects  the  Family  from  the  constitution 
of  God's  kingdom,  but  separates  the  salvation  of  parents  and 
children  from  each  other  by  an  impassable  gulf.  Parents  are 
saved  by  the  gospel ;  their  children  are  not  saved  by  the  gospel. 
He  sa3S  (p.  215),  "They  tell  us  that  the  covenant  of  Abraham 
was  the  new  covenant.  Now,  for  argument's  sake,  let  it  be  the 
new  covenant,  and  I  deny  the  result  that  they  wish  to  draw.  -In- 
fants ARE  NOT  SAVED  BY  THE  NEW  COVENANT"  (Capitals  Dr.  Car- 
son's),  "  and  therefore  they  cannot  be  connected  with  it,  in  any 
view  that  represents  them  as  interested  in  it.  It  is  a  vulgar  mis- 
take of  theologians  to  consider,  if  infants  are  saved,  they  must  be 
saved  by  the  new  covenant"  (p.  173).  "Certainly;  if  there  were 
no  way  of  saving  children  but  by  the  Gospel,  this  conclusion 
(that  a  person  must  actually  believe,  else  he  cannot  be  saved) 
would  be  inevitable.  The  Gospel  saves  none  but  by  faith.  But 
the  Gospel  has  nothing  to  do  with  infants,  nor  have  Gospel  ordi- 
nances any  respect  to  them.  It  is  good  news  ;  but  to  infants  it 
is  no  news  at  all.  They  know  nothing  of  it.  The  salvation  of 
the  Gospel  is  as  much  confined  to  believers,  as  the  baptism  of  the 


234  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Gospel  is.  None  can  ever  be  saved  by  the  Gospel  who  do  not 
believe  it.  Consequently,  b}'  the  Gospel  no  infant  can  be  saved. 
.  .  .  Infants  are  saved  by  the  death  of  Christ,  but  not  by  the 
Gospel." 

Had  the  sword  of  Solomon  divided  the  babe,  it  would  not  have 
been  more  murderous  to  the  child  or  more  pitiless  to  the  mother, 
than  is  this  theory  which  divides  Christ  and  his  Gospel  separating 
parents  and  their  children.  It  is  a  sadly  erring  theory  which 
attempts  to  hammer  out  the  promises  of  salvation  to  the  believing 
to  the  full  breadth  of  the  Gospel,  leaving  it  too  short  and  too  nar- 
row to  wrap  little  children  in.  Was  it  something  else  than  the 
Gospel  which  was  announced  to  "the  Mother  of  all  living,"  say- 
ing, "The  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  Serpent's  head?" 
Or,  were  little  children  excluded  from  this  great  work  of  "the 
holy  child  Jesus  ? "  Was  it  the  Gospel  which  was  proclaimed  by 
the  Angel  messenger — "Behold  I  bring  you  good  tidings  of  great 
joy,  which  shall  be  to  all  people  ? "  Gospel  to  the  Shepherds  be- 
cause "they  could  hear  it,"  but  no  "  Gospel"  to  new-born  babes 
(like  unto  the  Babe  of  Bethlehem  that  da^'  born  and  laid  in  his 
manger  cradle)  because  they  could  not  hear  it !  Was  it  the  Gospel 
which  that  other  Angel  announced — "  His  name  shall  be  called 
Jesus,  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins?"  or,  was  it 
something  else,  because  little  children  may  be  included  among 
his. people  redeemed  from  their  sins?  Was  it  the  Gospel  that 
Christ  announced  when  he  said — "  Except  any  one  be  born  again 
he  cannot  see  tlie  kingdom  of  God  ?"  or  something  else,  because 
little  children  may  be  "  boi'n  again  of  the  Spirit,"  and  then,  the 
Gospel  would  have  to  be  widened,  so  as  to  save  all  made  regene- 
rate by  the  Holy  Ghost,  whether  it  can  be  manifested  by  repent- 
ance and  faith  or  not?  Was  it  of  the  fruits  of  the  Gospel  that 
the  Saviour  said,  "  All  that  thou  hast  given  me  shall  come  unto 
me?"  or  of  something  else,  lest  "little  children"  should  be  re- 
garded as  given  by  the  Father  unto  his  Beloved  Son  when  they 
could  not  personally  repent  and  believe  ?  Should  not  the  friends 
of  a  theor}^  which  excludes  little  children  from  the  kingdom  of 
God,  ])()nder  that  utterance  of  astonishment  from  the  lips  of  that 
kingdom's  Lord — "Have  3'e  never  read,  'Out  of  the  mouth  of 
babes  and  sucklings  thou  hast  perfected  praise  ?'  "  And  that  other 
like  utterance,  "Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me  and  forl)id 
them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  " 

Are  there  two  bauds  in  heaven,  one  of  which  says,  "Unto  him 


INCREDIBILITIES.  235 

that  loved  us  and  washed  us  from  oui-  sins  in  his  own  blood,  be 
gloiy  and  dominion  forever,"  saying  nothing  of  being  old  enough 
to  hear,  and  repent,  and  believe,  and  therefore,  "  not  saved  by  the 
GoHpel ;''^  while  another  band  shall  say,  "Unto  him  that  'saved 
us  by  the  Gospel,'  because  we  were  old  enough  to  hear  it,  and 
repent  of  sin,  and  believe  the  promises,  be  glory  forever !" 

Is  this  the  Gospel  of  individualism  ? 

But  Dr.  Carson  cannot  away  with  such  a  theory.  Having  de- 
fended the  rejection  of  little  children  from  salvation  by  the  Gos- 
pel by  a  most  groundless  limitation  of  the  term  Gospel  and  its 
covenant  promises,  he  is  compelled  to  acknowledge  the  existence 
of  a  covenant  which  does  embrace  the  babe  and  the  suckling  as 
well  as  the  adult;  which  does  bless  "the  senseless  and  the  faith- 
less babe,"  notwithstanding  that  it  cannot  "hear"  or  understand 
"the  glad  tidings"  of  such  a  covenant  being  made  in  its  behalf. 
He  says  (p.  216),  "Theologians  justly  considering  that  infants 
have  sinned  in  Adam,  have  also  justly  considered  that  they  must 
be  washed  in  the  blood  of  the  Saviour."  The  parts  of  this  state- 
ment are  not  harmonious.  "Theologians  justly  considering  that 
infants  having  been  included  in  the  covenant  of  obedience  with 
their  family  head  (although  they  could  not  hear  the  Law,  and 
could  not  obey  the  Law)  and  were  thus  brought  into  an  estate  of 
sin  and  condemnation,"  is  a  statement  which  should  find  its 
counterpart  thus  :  Therefore  theologians  have  also  justly  con- 
sidered that  infants  being  included  in  the  covenant  of  grace  loith 
their  family  head  (although  they  cannot  hear  the  Gospel  or  be- 
lieve the  Gospel)  are  thus,  by  a  faithful  observance  of  that  cove- 
nant on  the  part  of  believing  parents,  brought  into  an  estate  of 
gracious  covenant  relation  with  God  in  Christ.  But  Dr.  Carson 
while  finding  the  want  of  knowledge  and  incapability  of  obedience 
no  diflficulty  in  placing  infants  under  a  covenant  of  death,  finds 
these  things  insuperable  barriers  against  j^lacing  infants  under  a 
covenant  of  life.  "  The  legs  of  the  lame  are  not  equal."  The 
attempt  to  make  the  Gospel  an  exclusive  covenant  with  indi- 
viduals capable  of  believing,  and  excluding  all  covenant  with 
believing  parents  for  their  children,  is  in  flat  contradiction  to  the 
declaration,  "the  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children;"  to  the 
fact,  that  Christ  gave  his  blessing  in  response  to  the  faith  of 
parents  to  their  little  children  brought  to  him  ;  and  to  the  truth, 
that  pardon  of  sin  and  reception  into  the  kingdom  of  God  are  not 
grounded  in  repentance  and  faith  as  ultimate  reasons,  but  as  ex- 


236  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

pository  of  what  is  essential — a  regenerate  nature,  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  alike  in  infant  and  adult.  So,  it  is  not  true,  that 
there  is  a  diverse  ultimate  ground  on  which  the  adult  or  infant 
receives  the  highest  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  redemption. 
When  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  The  new  covenant  knows  nothing  of 
an}'^  salvation  but  through  faith.  Such  a  covenant  cannot  save  an 
infant,  who  believes  nothing,"  he  contradicts  Christ  teaching, 
that  the  ultimate  requisite  to  salvation  is  regeneration  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  of  which  faith  is  a  fruit.  Infant  children  may  he 
made  regenerate  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  infant  son  of  Zacharias 
and  Elizabeth  was  so  made  regenerate — "  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  even  from  his  mother's  womb."  There  is  no  other  rational 
explanation  of  the  prayer  and  blessing  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
granted  to  the  infants  brought  to  him.  A  common  covenant  em- 
bracing infants  and  adults  is  acknowledged  by  Dr.  Carson  when 
he  says,  "  But  there  is  a  covenant  in  which  thej'  are  included, 
and  which  will  save  as  many  as  are  included  in  it — the  covenant 
of  redemption  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  in  which  he  en- 
gaged to  lay  down  his  life,  as  a  ransom,  for  his  chosen,  whether 
infants  or  adults."  With  such  an  admission  what  folly  to  deny, 
that  infants  are  saved  by  the  Gospel ;  or  to  affirm,  that  adults  are 
saved  in  any  essentially  different  way  from  infants  =  bj^  grace, 
through  the  blood  of  Christ  and  the  renewing  of  the  Hoi}-  Ghost. 

Alexander  Campbell. 

A  Baptist  writer  (Cliristian  Standard,  June  28,  1873)  quotes 
Alexander  Campbell  (President  of  Bethany  College)  thus  :  "  He 
did  not  admit,  'that  infant  children  were  depraved  in  any  sense 
which  makes  it  necessary  to  regenerate  them,  either  with  or  with- 
out the  Word,  in  order  to  their  salvation.'  " 

The  editor,  in  commenting  on  this  statement,  says:  "Point  us 
to  a  single  text  concerning  the  work  of  the  Spirit  that  is  fulfilled 
in  the  case  of  '  a  speechless  and  faithless  babe.'  A  babe  without 
knowledge,  without  faith,  without  love  or  hate,  without  the  least 
idea  of  sin  or  righteousness,  God  or  man,  heaven  or  hell — re- 
generated !  ...  It  is  the  merest  assumption  without  one  i)article 
of  direct  proof;  and  an  exceedingly  nonsensical  assumption  at 
that.  Tliere  is  nothing  more  at  war  with  reason  or  common 
sense  in  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  than 
in  this  of  infant  regeneration  —  a  miracle  transcending  all  our 
conceptions  and  at  war  with  all  we  know  of  human  nature." 


ALEXANDER    CAMPBELL.  237 

Thus,  the  error  which  begins  with  conteraptuous  sneering  at 
"senseless  and  faithless  babes"  as  an  apology  for  exchiding  the 
Famil3^  and  its  children  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  progresses  to 
the  exclusion  of  these  little  ones  from  the  salvation  of  "the  Gos- 
pel," by  Carson,  and  culminates  in  a  denial,  that  they  can  be  or 
that  they  need  to  be  made  regenerate  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  by 
Alexander  Campbell. 

Error  carried  out  to  its  logical  issues  has,  sometimes,  the  happy 
effect  of  frightening  back  to  the  truth  those  who  had  taken  the 
first  step,  all  unconscious  of  the  end  toward  which  their  faces 
were  set. 

A  writer  in  the  National  Baptist  (June  26,  1873)  is  shocked  at 
the  doctrine  of  individualism  as  it  is  applied  to  the  nation  and 
progresses  to  a  denial  of  the  Family,  or  the  Nation,  having  any 
God.  He  refers  to  sentiments  advanced  at  a  meeting  of  Baptist 
ministers,  held  a  short  time  previously,  in  Philadelphia.  This  is 
his  language:  "This  argument  is  good  only  on  the  assumption 
that  the  unit  of  society  is  the  individual,  one  person,  either  man 
or  woman.  But  this  is  the  boldest  of  absurdities.  A  man  alone 
or  a  woman  alone,  is  but  half  a  unit,  hardly  that.  It  takes  the 
two  in  conjugal  union,  and  having  around  them  the  fruits  of  such 
union,  to  make  up  the  true  unit.  In  a  word  the  family,  not  the 
individual,  is  the  true  unit  of  society,  and  of  the  state.  .  .  .  Hus- 
band is  liousehand,  the  one  who  by  his  authorit}^  (in  its  legitimate 
exercise)  orders  and  hinds  together  in  one  organic  whole  the  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  one  family.  .  .  .  Let  Dr.  Cathcart  and  every 
other  Doctor  who  teaches  the  apostolic  theory  of  the  state,  take 
note  of  it.  And  before  again  quoting  this  country  as  an  example 
of  the  successful  working  of  that  theory,  let  them  wait  a  modest 
century  or  two,  until  the  real  drift  of  it  can  be  seen.  '  The  mills 
of  God  grind  slowly,  but  they  grind  exceedingly  fine;'  and  if  this 
nation  tries  the  mad  experiment  of  ignoring  God,  it  will  be  ground 
to  powder.  God  has  never  said  that  he  is  not  the  God  of  nations 
and  states,  and  hence  that  they  are  not  to  serve  him  ;  but  he  said, 
'The  nation  and  kingdom  (not  merely  the  individual,  not  an  un- 
organized mob  of  individuals,  but  the  nation  and  the  kingdom) 
that  will  not  serve  thee  shall  perish.' " 

Here  the  idea,  that  the  individual  only  stands  in  responsible 
and  covenant  relation  to  God  under  law  and  grace  is  logically 
carried  out  to  the  denial,  that  the  nation  or  the  Family  has  any 
God,  and  to  the  rejection  of  the  Family  as  the  integral  element 


238  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  national  life,  so  as  to  shock  this  writer  who  accepts  the  doc- 
trine in  its  application  to  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  household 
of  faith. 

It  cannot  be  but  that,  sooner  or  later,  all  good  and  wise  men 
will  be  shocked  by  any  system  which  places  the  kingdom  of  God 
in  antagonism  with  the  Family  constitution  of  the  human  race, 
and  with  the  whole  structure  of  revelation  in  which  Farail}^  unity 
is  ingrained,  and  with  the  attributes  of  the  Deity  as  making  pro- 
vision for  a  race  without  providing  for  a  class  of  that  race  made 
up  of  untold  millions,  and  with  the  nature  of  the  Deity  itself  re- 
vealed in  TRi-uNE  and  not  in  tri-individual  life. 

We  believe  that  the  constitution  of  God's  gospel  kingdom  is  in 
harmony  with  God's*  constitution  of  the  human  race.  We  do, 
therefore,  accept  the  statements  — "  L^'dia  and  n^K  household^'''' 
"  the  Jailer  and  his  household  .^''^  "  Stephanas  and  his  household" 
at  the  normal  value  of  their  terms,  and  as  declaring  that  "'house- 
holds" are  received  into  the  kingdom  of  God  as  embraced  in  a 
covenant  relation  established  between  the  Family  head  and  the 
God  of  the  Family.  And  we  do  reject  as  the  profoundest  of 
errors,  essentially  vitiating  the  constitution  of  Clirist's  kingdom, 
and  as  antagonizing  every  covenant  formed  by  God  with  the 
human  race  from  the  beginning  of  time  until  now,  the  idea,  that 
individualism  has  supplahted  and  excluded  the  family  as  an 
organic  element  in  the  kingdom  of  God  and  in  the  covenant  of 
Redemption. 


ALL   RITUAL   BAPTISMS    EXAMINED  ;    THE    RESULTS. 

All  the  cases  of  ritual  baptism  in  the  New  Testament  which 
can  throw  any  light  upon  the  meaning  of  j3u-ri!^oj  have  now  been 
examined.  The  result  is  clear.  The  full  formula  of  New  Testa- 
ment baptism  embraces:  1.  The  verb  in  the  active  voice;  2.  The 
symbol  agency  in  the  dative,  with  or  without  iv ;  3.  The  comple- 
ment of  the  verb,  the  verbal  or  ideal  receiving  element,  in  the 
accusative  with  etq. 

This  full  formula  appears  in  Matt.  3:11,  [ianTi^io  Iv  uduzt  ei^ 
fisrdvucav ;  and  in  an  abbreviated  form  (also  with  the  omission  of  iv 
and  a  change  of  order),  in  Luke  3: 16,  udarc  iSanrH^uj.  No  abbre- 
viated form  call  be  made  the  basis  of  interpretation.  It  must  first 
be  completed  by  a  supply  of  the  ellipsis. 

In  the  full  form  the  active  voice  expresses  the  transition  of  the 


ALL    RITUAL    BAPTISMS    EXAMINED;    THE    RESULTS.      239 

object  from  one  condition  into  another ;  the  dative  expresses  the 
symbol  agency  by  which  this  change  is  effected  ;  the  accusative 
with  £iT  denotes  the  ideal  element  into  which  the  object  baptized 
passes,  thus  becoming  thoroughly  subject  to  its  influence.  That 
in  this  full  formula  the  agency  is  represented  by  the  dative  is  cer- 
tain :  1.  From  the  office  of  the  dative ;  2.  From  the  universal 
Classic  usage  with  the  verb  in  the  active  voice ;  3.  From  the 
nature  of  the  case,  which  forbids  a  living  person  to  be  put  into 
water  without  withdrawal,  which  the  meaning  of  the  verb  de- 
mands. 

It  is  no  less  certain,  that  in  this  full  formula  dq  with  its  regimen 
represents  the  complement  of  the  verb  (the  ideal  element  into 
which  the  baptized  object  verbally  passes),  and  is  thus  represented 
as  coming  under  its  full  influence.  This  is  certain  :  1.  From  the 
separate,  and  especially  from  the  combined,  power  of  ^ami'^uj  dq ; 
2.  From  the  accepted  force  of  such  combination  without  excep- 
tion, in  Classic,  Jewish,  and  Patristic  usage ;  3.  From  the  fact 
that  the  full  force  of  the  verb  cau  be  and  the  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture requires,  that  it  should  be  expended  in  this  direction  ;  4. 
From  the  fact  that  whenever  a  diversity  in  the  baptism  (=the 
controlling  influence  to  which  the  baptized  object  is  to  be  sub- 
jected) is  designed,  it  is  this  regimen  of  e:?  which  is  changed  to 
meet  the  demand.  Thus  the  eiq  iJ.s.Ta\>oia\>  expressive  of  the  bap- 
tism of  John  is  changed  to  the  ziz  to  ovo/xa  too  Kupiou  Irjffou^ 
to  express  the  baptism  of  Christians ;  and  this  is  changed  by  the 
Apostle  for  elq  tov  Mcjar/V^  to  express  the  baptism  of  the  Israel- 
ites ;  and  again  (to  express  and  to  condemn  a  suggested  baptism 
of  the  Corinthians)  we  have  ei<;  ro  ovofxa  Ilaukou;  while  to  ex- 
press a  special  baptism  common  to  all  Christians,  we  have  dq 
kv  (Twiia-^  and  the  ultimate  and  eternal  baptism  of  all  the  re- 
deemed, dq  TO  ovo;j.a  tou  UaTpoq  xa\  too  Ylou  7.a\  too  'Aytou 
Uvebp-aToq;  and  finally,  as  a  universal  phrase  covering  every 
case  of  baptism,  we  have  ei?  t\  i,3a7iTL(T0rjT£. 

Few  things,  in  the  whole  circle  of  revelation,  are  established  on 
more  full,  varied,  and  unquestionable  evidence  than  the  state- 
ment, that  the  complement  of  ^anTi^io  in  the  New  Testament  is  in- 
variably an  IDEAL  element,  suggestive  of  the  most  controlling 
spiritual  influence,  realized  or  symbolized. 

Corollary.  To  attempt  the  establishment  of  a  system  on  the 
idea,  that  the  Scriptures  teach  a  complementary  relation  between 
^a-KTiZoj  and  water,  is  to  build  on  a  most  absolute  and  imprac- 


240  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

ticable  error  which  can  never  be  reduced  to  practice ;  but  neces- 
sitates the  abandonment  of  a  baptism  for  the  composite  action 
of  walking  and  dipping,  as  also  a  division  of  administrative  func- 
tion between  the  baptizer  and  the  baptized,  and  still  fartlier  and 
worst  of  all,  the  substitution  of  a  dijij^ing  into  water  (which  is 
scripturally  a  nonentity)  for  that  most  precious  symbol  baptism 
"with  water  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  JesusP 


CHRISTIC   BAPTISM: 

DOCTKINAL  TEUTH  GROUNDED  IN  OR  EXPOUNDED  BY 
REAL  BAPTISM  BY  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

HOLY   LIVING    THE    FRUIT    OF    REAL    BAPTISM. 

EoMANS  6 :  2-4. 

"H  ayvodTEy  on  baoc  ejSaTTTiadT/iiev  kic  Xpiarov  'Itjgovv  cJf  rbv  davavov  alrov 
e/3aTi  TicdTjfiEV  5 

1,vveTd(j)7]fiev  ovv  avru  6ia  tov  ^anTicyjuaTog  elg  tov  ddvarov, 

"  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein  ? 

"  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ 
were  baptized  into  his  death  ? 

"Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  b\'  baptism  into  his  death:  that  like 
as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so 
we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life." 

Baptism  into  the  death  of  Christy  not  ritual  Baptism. 

Those  who  believe,  that  ritual  baptism  should  be  administered 
by  the  candidate  walliiug  into  the  water  "  to  a  convenient  depth," 
and  the  administrator  dipping  into  the  water  so  much  of  the 
body  as  the  candidate  may  not  himself  have  put  under  the  water 
by  walliing,  attach  a  supreme  importance  to  this  passage  for  the 
vindication  of  their  practice. 

This  is  done  notwithstanding  there  is  no  administration  of  the 
rite  in  the  passage  ;  notwithstanding  there  is  no  proposed  expo- 
sition of  the  rite ;  notwithstanding  there  is  no  declared  allusion 
to  the  rite;  notwithstanding  there  is  no  mention  of  water;  and 
notwithstanding  that  the  subject  under  discussion — hol}^  living- 
essential  to  every  true  Christian — excludes  a  ritual  ordinance  as 
the  basis  of  the  argument. 

The  idea,  that  a  ritual  baptism  is  referred  to  in  this  passage  is 
grounded  on  the  most  absolute  assumption.  That  assumption  is 
twofold :  1.  That  the  ruling  baptism  of  the  New  Testament  is 
(not  the  superior  and  real  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  the 

16  (  241  ) 


242  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

inferior  and  ritual  baptism  with  water) ;  2.  Tliat  wliere  baptism  is 
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  absolutely,  reference  is  made  to 
the  inferior  and  ritual  baptism,  and  not  to  the  superior,  and  real 
baptism  of  which  the  rite  is  but  the  symbol. 

This  assumption  is  erroneous  in  both  its  pai'ts.  The  proof  is 
this:  1.  It  is  an  error  of  principle  to  give  precedence  to  the  in- 
ferior over  the  superior  ;  2.  It  is  impossible  to  reduce  the  assump- 
tion to  practice  :  (1.)  If  it  be  ritual  baptism  which  is  spoken  of, 
then,  the  ellipsis  must  be  supplied  and  the  phraseology  com- 
pleted and  interpreted  on  that  basis.  This  being  done,  it  would 
read  thus:  "As  man}'  of  us  as  were  dipped  in  water  into  Christ,  , 
were  dipped  in  water  into  his  death ;  Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  dipping  in  water  into  his  death."  Such  translation 
and  construction  is  untenable,  because  the  substitution  of  dipped 
for  "  baptized  "  is  the  erasure  of  a  most  important  word  of  inspi- 
ration and  the  insertion  of  its  right  opposite  in  meaning ;  and 
because  it  destroys  the  integrity  and  the  momentous  truth  in  the 
phrases,  "baptized  into  Christ,"  baptized  "in/o  his  death;"  and 
because  neither  Paul  nor  any  other  rational  man  ever  wrote  or 
reasoned  after  the  style  of  this  ritually  completed  phraseology ; 
(2.)  A  baptism  into  water  (not  taking  out)  is  impossible ;  a  bap- 
tism into  Christ  (not  taking  out)  is  the  very  demand  of  Salva- 
tion. 

Baptism  into  Christy  Real  Baptism. 

1.  The  presumption  in  every  case  of  the  absolute  use  of  baptism 
in  the  New  Testament  is,  that  the  reference  is  to  real  baptism.  It 
is  universall}'  admitted,  that  the  New  Testament  speaks  of  baptism 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  most  real  in  its  operation  and  in  its 
spiritual  effect,  thoroughly  changing  the  condition  of  the  soul 
from  the  love  of  sin  to  the  love  of  holiness  ;  it  is  also  of  universal 
admission,  that  the  New  Testament  announces  a  baptism  of  water, 
which  is  believed  (so  far  as  the  parties  immediately  involved  in 
this  Inquiry  are  concerned)  to  have  no  essential  spiritual  power, 
but  to  serve  as  a  rite  to  symbolize  the  purifying  power  and  effect 
in  the  soul  of  the  real  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  real  bap- 
tism is  as  abiding  in  the  Churcli  as  is  tlie  atonement  on  which  it 
is  grounded,  and  as  universal  in  its  application  as  is  the  blood  of 
the  Lamb  which  cleanseth  from  all  sin.  It  was  preached  by  .John 
("He  shall  baptize  3'ou  by  the  Holy  Ghost")  as  the  distinguish- 
ing characteristic  of  the  coming  and  kingdom  of  the  Mightier 


BAPTISM    INTO    CHRIST,   REAL    BAPTISM.  243 

One.  It  was  declared  by  the  Lord  Jesus  ("  Ye  shall  be  baptized 
by  the  Holy  Ghost ")  when  he  was  about  to  ascend  to  his  throne. 
It  was  proclaimed  by  Peter  at  Pentecost,  "I  will  pour  out  of  mj' 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  It  was  republished  at  Caesarea,  when  on 
the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
Peter  "remembered  the  word  of  the  Lord,  'Ye  shall  be  baptized 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.' "  It  was  declared  by  Paul  to  the  Corinthians, 
to  characterize  every  soul  united  to  Christ,  "  We  are  all  baptized 
by  one  Spirit  into  one  body."  And  it  is  this  same  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  received  by  every  Christian,  which  Paul  declares  to  the 
Romans  when  he  says,  "  So  many  of  us  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Christ  have  received  newness  of  life."  This  real  baptism 
vindicates  its  claim  by  the  ability  to  meet  in  the  most  absolute 
manner  all  the  exigencies  of  the  argument.  A  symbol  baptism 
presents  its  plea  in  vain,  because  it  does  as  absolutely  fail  to  meet 
such  exigencies.  The  demand  for  a  real,  regenerative  baptism 
of  the  Spirit  is  imperative.  This  necessity  Patristic  writers  recog- 
nized and  accepted.  While  groundlessly  deducing  from  the  pas- 
sage the  idea  of  a  symbol  burial  in  water,  they  earnestly  believed 
that  the  baptism  was  not  a  dipping  in  water.  This  no  Patristic 
writer  believed.  Whatever  error  attached  to  their  view  it  pre- 
served that  vital  element  in  the  argument  of  the  Apostle,  to  wit, 
every  one  baptized  into  Christ  must  die  to  sin  and  live  to  holi- 
ness ;  because  every  such  person  has,  by  such  baptism,  received 
newness  of  life.  But  the  modern  advocates  of  a  burial  in  water, 
rejecting  the  idea  that  the  Spirit  does  really  baptize  the  soul  in 
the  rite,  and  introducing  the  novelty  that  dipping  into  water  is 
Christian  baptism,  do  eviscerate  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  of 
all  its  life. 

2.  That  this  baptism  is  real,  by  the  Spirit,  and  not  ritual,  by 
water,  is  farther  conclusively  shown  by  the  fact,  that  dq  with  its 
regimen  related  to  fia-Kri^uj  declares  definitely  and  finally  the  bap- 
tism and  the  nature  of  the  baptism. 

This  is  true  without  exception  of  Classic  usage.  In  such  phrases 
as  iSanTi^^u)  elq  ddXaffffav^  elq  Uiivr^M^  dq  miTajiov^  no  one  ever  thought 
of  any  other  translation  or  interpretation  than  that  which  makes 
the  baptized  object  pass  into  the  sea,  into  the  lake,  into  the  river, 
without  any  purpose  or  power  of  the  verb  lo  bring  out ;  therefore, 
subjecting  the  object  to  the  unlimited  influence  of  sea,  lake,  or 
river.  The  same  is  true  of  Jewish  writings.  When  Josephus 
speaks  of  a  baptism  dq  avaitrO-^aiav  an  intelligent  translation  pre- 


244  CHRTSTIC    BAPTISM. 

eludes  any  other  than  a  baptism  "  into  insensibility,"  the  verbal 
form  being  modelled  after  that  of  a  ph3'sical  baptism  ;  but  inas- 
much as  a  physical  passing  "  into  insensibility  "  as  an  element  is 
impossible,  this  idea  is  rejected  ;  and  that  other  idea  of  unlimited 
influence  consequent  upon  an  object  being  introduced,  without 
withdrawal,  into  a  physical  element,  is  accepted  as  the  idea  de- 
signed to  be  conveyed  b}'  such  phrase.  The  same  form,  with  the 
same  power  of  expression,  is  used  by  Patristic  writers.  Clemens 
Alex,  speaks  of  a  baptism  elc;  o-kvuv  into  sleep  ;  where,  again,  we 
reject  the  impossible  idea  of  a  passage  "into  sleep"  as  an  element, 
and  accept  the  associate  and  inseparable  idea,  unlimited  influence 
of  sleep.  Now,  unless  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  be  under 
essentially  different  laws  from  all  other  Greek  (Classic,  Jewish, 
and  Patristic),  then  baptism  '-''into  Christ"  is  modelled  after  the 
form  of  a  physical  baptism  which  represents  an  object  passing 
into  a  physical  element,  and  thus  subjected  to  the  fullest  influence 
of  such  element ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  redeemed  souls  of  a  world 
cannot,  in  fact,  pass  "into  Christ^^''  we  reject  this  idea  (except  as 
suggestive)  and  take  the  inseparable,  consequent  idea  of  unlimited 
influence  exerted  by  Christ  over  his  redeemed  people  --=^  taking 
away  tUe  guilt  of  sin,  and  giving  "newness  of  life  "  through  the 
regenerating  power  of  his  Spirit.  The  same  explanation  applies 
to  baptism  "  into  iiis  death,"  which  is  only  a  more  precise  state- 
ment as  to  the  source  of  that  influence  exercised  by  Christ  over 
his  [)eople.  Christ  is  what  he  is  to  his  people  by  reason  of  his 
atoning  death  ;  therefore,  "  so  many  of  us  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Christ,  have  been  baptized  into  his  death." 

3.  There  is  no  just  ground  for  error  or  doubt  as  to  the  import 
of  ek  and  its  regimen  in  relation  with  (iaTzri'lw.  The  principle  of 
interpretation  is  clear  and  fixed.  It  is  found  in  the  influence 
exerted  over  an  object  in  physical  baptism.  The  nature  of  such 
influence  is  no  less  clear  and  fixed.  It  is  the  most  unlimited  =:r 
penetrating,  controlling,  and  assimilating  influence  which  the 
nature  of  the  case  allows.  The  variable  quantities  in  such  bap- 
tism are  found  in  the  nature  of  the  element  and  the  nature  of  the 
object.  If  water  or  oil  he  the  element  into  which  a  fleece  of  wool 
is  baptized  the  effect  upon  the  wool  will  l)e  diverse,  according  to 
the  diverse  nature  of  water  and  oil.  If  a  vessel  and  its  crew  be 
baptized  together  into  the  sea,  the  effect  of  this  common  baptism 
on  vessel  and  crew  will  be  diverse,  according  to  the  nature  of  life- 
less wood  and  of  living  men.     A  baptism  "into  insensibility" 


DR.    CARSON.  245 

differs  from  a  baptism  "into  repentance"  just  as  inaensihiUty 
differs  from  repentance.  And  a  baptism  ^'- into  Moses,"  '-'■into 
Paul,"  '''-into  Christ,"  differs  the  one  from  the  other  just  as  Moses 
and  Paul  and  Christ  differ  the-one  from  the  other. 

If  these  thiugs  be  true,  then,  when  in  the  statement  of  any 
baptism  elq  and  its  regimen  appears,  the  baptism  is  thereby  defi- 
nitely and  absolutely  declared.^  and  all  farther  inquiry  is  concluded. 

In  the  passage  before  us  the  baptism  spoken  of  is  declared  to 
be  "t«.to Christ"  and  (its equivalent  baptism)  "z«to  his  death;" 
and  this  it  must  be  for  all  with  whom  the  word  of  God  expressly 
declared  is  the  end  of  all  controversy.  And  as  we  can  only  be 
made  partakers  of  the  blessings  which  belong  to  Christ  and  his 
death,  by  the  grace  and  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  this  baptism 
can  only  be  the  real  and  regenerative  baptism  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 

Dr.  Carson. 

The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  views  of  Dr.  Carson  on  this 
passage : 

"All  eminent  scholars  will  confess,  as  plainly  as  prudence  will 
permit  them,  that  we  have  both  the  meaning  of  the  word  and  the 
inspired  explanation  of  the  mode  in  our  favor.  .  .  .  But  the  thing 
is  so  plain  in  itself,  that  if  all  the  men  on  earth  should  deny  it,  I 
could  not  think  otherwise  of  it  than  I  do.  .  .  .  Any  one  who  under- 
stands the  words,  will  be  able  to  understand  the  assertion  as  clearly 
as  Newton  or  Locke.  Buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  must  mean 
that  baptism  has  a  resemblance  to  Christ's  burial.  Were  the 
angel  Gabriel  to  hesitate,  1  would  order  him  to  school.  In  many 
cases  of  error  I  can  see  the  plausible  ground  on  which  it  rests ; 
but  here  I  can  perceive  no  den  in  which  deception  can  be  con- 
cealed. .  .  .  Believers  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  and  it 
is  by  baptism,  also,  they  die  with  him.  Death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection are  all  expressly  in  the  emblem.  .  .  .  There  are  two  dis- 
tinct emblems  in  baptism  :  one  of  purification  by  water,  another 
of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  by  immersion.  .  .  .  But  the 
fact  is  that  baptism,  as  far  as  it  is  here  expounded,  refers  to  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection,  without  any  mention  of  purification,  or 
any  allusion  to  it.  Baptism  is  here  spoken  of,  not  with  respect 
to  the  water,  but  with  respect  to  the  mode.  In  this  there  are 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  "  (pp.  383-386). 

"  They  are  literally  immersed,  but  the  burial  is  equally  figura- 


246  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

tive  as  the  death ;  and  the}''  die  in  baptism  as  well  as  they  are 
buried  in  baptism.  Indeed  it  is  hy  being  buried  that  they  die. 
That  this  figurative  burial  is  under  water  is  not  in  the  passage : 
this  is  known  from  the  rite,  and  is  here  supplied  by  ellipsis " 
(p.  411). 

"  Here  is  a  burial  by  or  through  the  means  of  baptism.  What 
buries  us  into  death  ?  It  is  baptism.  But  the  death  into  which 
baptism  buries  us  must  be  a  figurative  death.  It  is  faith  that 
buries  us  truly  into  Christ's  death.  But  the  death  and  burial 
here  spoken  of  are  effected  not  by  faith,  but  by  baptism.  .  .  . 
Nay,  it  is  by  burial  we  die.  We  are  supposed  to  be  buried  into 
death.  To  immerse  a  living  man  affords  an  emblem  of  death  as 
well  as  of  burial.  The  baptized  person  dies  under  the  water,  and 
for  a  moment  lies  buried  with  Christ.  Christ's  own  death  was 
spoken  of  under  the  figure  of  a  baptism  "  (p.  157). 

"  Twist  and  twist  as  you  will,  still  there  is  burial  in  baptism. 
Believers  are  buried  into  death.  It  is  not  they  die  and  are  buried, 
but  they  are  buried  and  die.  Mode  is  the  point  at  issue,  and  is 
the  onl}^  thing  signified  by  the  word  itself.  Some  Baptists  it 
seems  do  not  see  the  force  of  the  argument  on  Rom.  6  :  3,  4.  At 
the  very  worst  this  is  only  the  loss  of  a  single  argument,  an  argu- 
ment, however,  which  I  would  hold  were  an  angel  to  reject  it " 
(p.  420). 

"  To  be  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  imports  the  being  baptized 
into  the  faith  of  Ws  death  as  our  substitute ;  but  to  be  baptized 
into  his  death  imports  that  by  baptism  we  are  exhibited  as  dying 
with  him"  (p.  159). 

"  The  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  which  are  ascribed  to 
baptism,  take  place  in  bajjtism,  and  by  means  of  baptism.  The 
washing  away  of  sins,  ascribed  to  baptism,  is  effected  b}'  baptism. 
This  washing,  this  death,  this  burial,  and  this  resurrection,  then, 
cannot  be  the  washing,  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  which  are 
effected  by  faith,  and  which  take  j^lcice  before  bajjtism.  If  the 
washing  away  of  sins,  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  ascribed 
to  baptism,  were  effected  previously,  and  by  other  means,  the 
Scriptures  are  not  true  that  speak  of  them  as  effected  in  baptism 
and  by  baptism.  The  reality  lias  already  taken  place,  but  it  is 
represented  in  figure,  as  taking  place  in  the  ordinance,  and  by 
means  of  the  ordinance  "  (p.  161). 


CRITICISM.  247 


Criticism. 


1.  "All  eminent  scholars  will  confess,  as  plainly  as  prudence 
will  permit  them,  that  we  have  both  the  meaning  of  the  word  and 
the  inspired  explanation  of  the  mode  in  our  favor."  Answer: 
The  result  of  this  Inquiry  shows  that  Dr.  Carson  and  his  friends 
have  fatally  mistaken  the  meaning  of  the  word,  having  substituted 
the  meaning  of  [idTz-u)  for  [ia-Ti^u).  Whether  there  be  any  "  in- 
spired explanation  of  the  mode  "  in  this  passage,  the  examination 
of  it,  in  which  we  are  engaged,  will  determine. 

2.  "Any  one  who  understands  the  words  will  be  able  to  under- 
stand the  assertion  as  well  as  Newton  or  Locke."  Answer :  A 
right  understanding  of  words  is  oftentimes  adequate  to  develop 
truth  ;  but  the  mere  understanding  of  individual  words  in  organic 
phraseological  combination  is  oftentimes  worthless  to  elicit  the 
truth.  The  passage  before  us  is,  to  a  remarkable  degree,  made 
up  of  phrases  which  cannot  be  broken  up  into  disjunct  words 
without  the  destruction  of  their  life. 

3.  '■''  Bui'ied  with  Christ  by  bajytism  must  mean  that  baptism  has 
a  resemblance  to  Christ's  burial.  I  would  order  the  angel  Gabriel 
to  school.  I  can  perceive  no  den  in  which  deception  can  be  con- 
cealed." Answer  :  To  give  the  statement  "  buried  with  Christ 
by  baptism  "  as  the  statement  of  Paul,  is  as  untrue  as  for  Herod 
to  give  the  detruncated  body  of  John  to  his  disciples,  and  declare 
that  it  was  the  Forerunner  of  Jesus.  The  headless  trunk  of  John 
cries  out  "Murder!"  and  "buried  with  Christ  by  baptism"  is 
but  a  murdered  trunk  ;  its  head  ("  into  his  death  ")  having  been 
decapitated  by  the  sharp  sword  of  the  theory.  It  is  only  b^^  the 
death  of  its  slain  victim  that  the  theory  has  any  hope  of  life. 
This  is  an  illustration  of  the  death  dismemberment  of  an  organic 
phrase.  Dr.  Carson  might  as  well  quote  for  Bible  truth,  "  There 
is  no  God,"  leaving  out  "  The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart."  And 
if  the  angel  Gabriel,  under  the  "  order  "  of  Dr.  Carson,  were  to 
go  to  school  where  the  heads  of  organic  phrases  were  lopped  off, 
as  is  here  done  by  this  lordly  Imperator,  he  would  be  but  little 
wiser  at  the  end  of  his  schooling  than  at  its  beginning. 

4.  "  Death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  are  all  expressly  in  the 
emblem."  Answer :  This  is  the  purest  assumption  and  assertion. 
It  is  the  purest  assumption  to  talk  of  any  emblem  being  in  the 
passage  ;  and  it  is  the  purest  assertion,  to  say  that  there  is  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  in   baptism  here  or   anywhere  else  in 


248  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Scripture.     Sirius  is  as  truly  in  the  solar  system  as  resurrection 
is  in  baptism. 

5.  "  There  are  two  distinct  emblems  in  baptism:  one  of  purifi- 
cation by  water,  another  of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  by 
immersion."  Anawer :  That  there  should  be  "two  distinct"  em- 
blems in  one  emblematic  rite  is  unnatural  and  incredible,  if  not 
impossible  and  absurd.  It  savors  strongly  of  humanism,  which 
"  has  sought  out  many  iuA^entions,"  and  not  of  divine  simplicity. 
Whatever  may  be  the  essential  merits  of  this  statement,  two 
things  are  certain:  1.  There  is  not  one  word  of  Scripture  for  its 
support ;  2.  Dr.  Carson  is  at  fault  in  his  arithmetic.  Instead  of 
'•''two  distinct  emblems,"  a  correct  summing  up  furnishes  us  with 
four  (1.)  Purification;  (2.)  Death;  (3.)  Burial;  (4.)  Resurrec- 
tion. And  why  a  dipping  into  water  should  be  limited  to  giving 
birth  to  this  quartette  group,  I  do  not  know ;  but  the  paternity, 
as  it  stands,  must  be  set  down  to  a  prolific  theory  and  not  to 
Christian  baptism. 

6.  "  But  the  fact  is  that  baptism,  as  far  as  it  is  here  expounded, 
refers  to  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  without  any  mention 
of  purification,  or  any  allusion  to  it."  Answer  :  Tliat  is  to  say, 
when  Paul  undertakes  to  establish  the  essential  purity  of  Chris- 
tian character,  he  frames  an  argument  "  without  any  mention  of 
or  allusion  to  purification,"  but  does  so  clearly  establish  the  mode 
of  a  rite  (!)  that  "  the  angel  Gabriel  must  be  ordered  to  school  " 
if  he  should  have  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  on  so  vital  a  point,  as 
compared  with  the  minor  issue  of  soul  purification  through  union 
with  Christ  in  his  wondrous  work  of  redemption  ! 

t.  "  Baptism  is  here  spoken  of,  not  with  respect  to  the  water, 
but  with  respect  to  the  mode.  In  this,  there  are  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection."  Answer :  Then,  why  these  remarkable  things 
should  be  unrevealed  and  unsuggested  for  more  than  a  quarter 
of  a  hundred  years  after  baptism  was  instituted,  taught,  and 
practiced,  must  remain  among  "  the  hidden  things,"  until  resolved 
by  the  theory. 

8.  "  They  die  in  baptism,  as  well  as  they  are  buried  in  baptism. 
Indeed  it  is  by  being  buried  that  they  die."  Ansiver :  These  are 
three  conceptions  to  be  credited  to  a  rich  imagination,  but  for  which 
divine  inspiration  refuses  to  accept  the  slightest  respousibility. 

9.  "That  the  figurative  burial  is  under  water  is  not  in  the 
p'assage :  this  is  known  from  the  rite,  and  is  here  supplied  by 
ellipsis."     Ansiver :  Dr.  Carson  is  always  honest  in  his  intention 


CRITICISM.  249 

even  when  most  profoundly  erroneous  in  his  conviction.  "  There 
is  no  water  and  no  burial  under  water  in  the  passage."  Then 
here  is  an  admitted  fixed  point.  And  on  it  we  stand  and  sternly 
refuse  that  either  "  water  or  burial  under  water  "  shall  be  assumed 
or  asserted  into  a  passage  from  which  they  have  been  excluded 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  it  is  said,  that  we  know  that  they  should 
be  there  "from  the  rite."  'First prove  (don't  assume  and  assert) 
that  "  the  rite "  is  there.  "  It  is  supplied  by  ellipsis."  Then 
prove  (as  the  law  of  ellipsis  demands)  that  "burial  under  water" 
appears  in  any  other  antecedent  passage.  When  such  proof  is 
given  we  will  lift  our  foot  from  the  concession  and  stand  back; 
but  not  till  then. 

10.  "Here  is  a  burial  by  or  through  the  means  of  baptism. 
What  buries  us  into  death  ?  It  is  baptism.  But  the  death  into 
which  baptism  buries  us  must  be  a  figurative  death."  Answer: 
To  say  that  there  is  any  burial  b}^  iHtual  baptism,  in  the  passage, 
is  as  untrue  as  to  say  that  the  headless  body  of  John  is  the  living 
Forerunner.  Both  the  question,  "  What  buries  us  into  death  ?" 
and  the  answer,  "  It  is  baptism,"  is  as  far  removed  from  express- 
ing anything  in  the  passage,  as  the  west  is  from  the  east.  There 
is  not  a  syllable  in  the  passage  about  Christians  being  '•'•buried 
into  death  "  by  baptism  or  an}- thing  else.  The  statement  of  in- 
spiration is,  "We  are  buried  with  Mm  (Christ)  by  baptism  (not 
into  water,  nor  3'et  into  death,  but)  into  his  death."  The  article, 
Tov  Odvarov,  shows  that  it  is  not  death  in  the  abstract  that  is 
spoken  of,  but  as  concrete  in  the  crucified  Christ.  And  the  state- 
ment of  a  "  burial  into  death  by  baptism  "  as  representing  the 
text  is  the  most  absolute  perversion  and  contradiction  of  the  text. 
The  burial  is  not  "into  death,"  but  co-burial  "  with  Christ,"  and 
this  co-burial  with  Christ  is  not  by  baptism  in  water,  but  "by 
baptism  into  his  deathJ'^ 

11.  "It  is  faith  that  buries  us  truly  into  Christ's  death." 
Answer :  Truth  and  error  are  here  mixed  togethei".  The  error 
consists  in  the  substitution  of  bury  for  baptize.  The  Scriptures 
know  nothing  of  a  ^''burial  into  Christ's  death."  They  do  teach 
a  "  baptism  into  Christ's  death."  "  Burial  into  Christ's  death  " 
is  nonsense ;  "  Baptism  into  Christ's  death  "  is  the  wisdom  of 
God  and  the  power  of  God,  as  well  as  the  love  of  God,  and  the 
grace  of  God,  bringing  life  from  the  dead.  The  truth  of  the 
statement  is  in  the  declaration,  "  It  is  faith  that  baptizes  us  truly 
into  the  death  of  Christ."     And  if  Dr.  Carson  and  his  friends 


250  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

will  be  satisfied  with  the  double  truth  which  he  has  stated;  (1.) 
"  There  is  no  water  nor  burial  under  water  in  the  passage  ;"  (2.) 
"  Faith  baptizes  us,  truly,  into  the  death  of  Christ ;"  we  will  re- 
joice together  in  having  attained  unto  the  mind  of  the  Spirit. 
And  abandoning  the  remarkable  reading,  "  As  many  as  have 
been  dipped  in  water  into  Christ,  have  been  dipped  in  water  into 
his  death  ;  buried  with  him  by  the  dipping  in  water  into  death," 
we  will  accept  the  better  reading,  '•  As  many  as  have  been  bap- 
tized by  faith  into  Christ,  have  been  baptized  by  faith  into  his 
death  ;  buried  with  him  through  baptism  bj'^  faith  into  his  death." 
This  is  the  simple  and  exhaustive  truth  of  the  passage.  "  Water," 
"burial  under  water,"  "death  in  water,"  "resurrection  out  of 
water,"  are  all  finger-marks  of  human  improvements  (?)  of  the 
inspired  text. 

12.  "  AVeare  supposed  to  be  buried  into  death.  To  immerse  a 
living  man,  affords  an  emblem  of  death  as  well  as  of  burial. 
The  baptized  person  dies  under  the  water,  and  for  a  moment  lies 
buried  with  Christ."  Answer  :  These  statements  are  nothing  but 
successive  shocks  to  the  good  sense  and  right  feeling  of  thought- 
ful minds.  It  has  already  been  stated,  that  "  burial  into  death  " 
has  no  existence  in  the  passage.  And  there  has  been  occasion, 
many  times,  to  say.  Dr.  Carson  has  no  right  to  use  immerse  or 
bury  for  baptize.  He  asserts  that  "  dip  "  is  the  only  and  uni- 
versal meaning  of  the  Greek  word;  and  between  the  distinctive 
meanings  of  dip  and  immerse  there  is  as  much  difference  as  be- 
tween light  and  darkness.  "Immersion"  will  not  only  furnish 
an  emblem  of  death  and  burial  for  a  living  man,  but  will  give  the 

reality — 

'^dead 

By  cold  submersion,  razor,  rope  or  lead." 

'■'■  immersed 

Deep  in  the  flood,  found,  when  he  sought  it  not 
The  death  he  had  deserved,  and  died  alone." 

If  ever  (apart  from  the  remarkable  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage) the  avowed  momentar}'  dipping  of  a  living  man  (or  the 
upper  part  of  his  body  after  he  had  walked  into  the  water)  was 
ever  considered  by  any  people  as  indicative  of  a  death,  and 
burial,  and  resurrection,  it  might  be  worth  while  to  indicate 
when,  or  where,  or  among  whom,  this  singularity  has  made  and 
revealed  itself.  As  to  the  conceit,  that  "the  baptized  person  dies 


CRITICISM.  251 

under  the  water,"  I  respond  with  Origen,  "  No  living  person  is 
ever  buried."  And  as  for  "  lying  buried  with  Christ,  for  a  mo- 
ment, under  the  water,"  the  Bible  doctrine  will  be  more  accept- 
able to  his  people  who  are  "  crucified  with  him,"  that  they  lie 
buried  with  him  in  his  rock  sepulchre,  not  for  a  moment,  but 
through  all  the  time  that  he  lies  there,  even  as  he  himself  taught 
in  that  only  Bible  type  of  his  burial — "As  Jonah  was  three  days 
and  three  nights  in  the  whale's  belly :  so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be 
three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth,"  and  so 
long  his  people  are  co-buried  with  him.  So  long  as  this  miracle 
type  of  Christ's  burial  remains  of  divine  authority,  we  cannot  ac- 
cept its  right  opposite  (momentary  dipping)  as  a  substitute, 
however  earnestly  men  ma}'  plead  for  it. 

13.  "  Christ's  own  death  was  spoken  of  under  the  figure  of  a 
baptism."  Answer:  Yes;  it  was.  Christ  was  baptized  into  death, 
into  penal  death,  into  that  death  which  was  demanded  by  the 
broken  law.  And  how  was  he  baptized  into  death  ?  Was  it  by 
being  dipped  into  water?  Or,  by  drinking  the  cup  held  to  his  lips 
by  a  Father's  hand,  in  which  were  melted  down,  the  humiliation 
of  "  taking  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,"  the  bearing  of  the 
name  of  "Nazarene"  and  Beelzebub,  the  endurance  of  buffetings 
and  stripes,  the  nails,  and  the  thorns,  and  the  spear,  and  the 
averted  face  of  his  ever-loving  Father  ?  All  this  he  drank,  and 
hy  it  ivas  haptized  into  i^enal  and  atoning  death.  And  now,  havino" 
endured  this  penal  death  satisfying  the  demands  of  the  Law,  his 
death  becomes  impregnated  with  a  sin-remitting'  and  life-giving 
power,  so  that  all  who  are  baptized  "  into  his  death  "  become  fully 
partakers  of  these  wondrous  virtues,  and  therefore  Paul  teaches, 
"  So  many  of  us  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  been  bap- 
tized into  HIS  death,^^  not  into  death,  which  would  make  the  death 
of  Christ  of  no  effect ;  not  into  penal  death,  which  would  super- 
sede the  death  of  Christ  as  the  propitiation  for  our  sins ;  but 
"into  HIS  death,"  that  we  might  be  brought  fully  under  its  sin- 
remitting  and  life-giving  power.  How  vain  to  appeal  to  the  bap- 
tism of  Christ  into  penal  death  to  buttress  up  that  marvel  of  a 
"baptism  into  death" — a  dipping  into  water! 

14.  "Twist  and  twist  as  you  will,  still,  there  is  burial  in  bap- 
tism." Answer:  This  ever-echoing  refrain  of  a '■'•  burial  in  bap- 
tism," as  extracted  from  the  statement,  "  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  his  death,^'  is  an  error  so  patent  that  it  would  be 
inexcusable  in  a  Sabbath-school  child,  or  in  "  a  wayfaring  man 


252  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

though  a  fool,"  whatever  excuse  may  be  found  for  it  in  one  who 
"  orders  the  angel  Gabriel  to  school."  Burial  and  Baptism  have 
nothing  common. 

15.  "  Mode  is  the  point  at  issue,  and  is  the  only  thing  signified 
by  the  word  itself."  Answer:  The  word  never  signifies  a  modal 
or  definite  act  of  any  kind,  much  less  "  dip  and  nothing  but 
dip." 

16.  "  To  be  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  imports,  the  being  bap- 
tized into  the  faith  of  his  death  as  our  substitute  ;  but  to  be  bap- 
tized into  his  death  imports,  that  by  baptism  we  are  exhibited  as 
dying  along  with  him."  Answer:  Whistling  to  the  wind,  is  as 
much  an  interpretation  of  these  Scripture  phrases  as  this  fancy 
exposition  of  Dr.  Carson — "Baptized  into  Jesus  Christ"  means 
"  to  be  dipped  in  water  into  the  faith  of  his  death  as  our  substi- 
tute "(!).  Yes,  just  as  truly  as  "baptized  into  insensibility" 
means  to  be  dipped  in  water  into  the  faith  of  obliviousness  to  all 
sublunary  things!  And  "  baptized  into  his  death"  means,  by 
dipping  in  water  we  are  exhibited  as  dying  along  with  him  (!). 
But  whence  these  diversities  of  interpretation?  Wh3'  have  we 
"faith"  introduced  into  one  exposition,  and  an  "exhibition"  in- 
troduced into  another?  Must  we  interpret  "baptized  into  sleep" 
as  a  dipping  in  water  exhibiting  us  as  going  to  sleep  ?  There  is 
just  as  much  authority  for  introducing  a  dipping  in  water  into  the 
interpretation  of  "  baptized  into  insensibilit}^,"  and  "  baptized  into 
sleep,"  as  into  "baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,"  and  "baptized  into 
his  death."  These  phrases  have  an  absolute  completeness  within 
themselves,  as  have  those  other  phrases,  "  baptized  into  repent- 
ance," "  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  and  must  all  be  inter- 
preted on  the  same  principle,  namely,  the  baptized  object  is  declared 
to  come  under  the  full  influence  of  "  insensibility,"  "  sleep,"  "  re- 
pentance," "remission  of  sins,"  "Jesus  Christ,"  and  "  his  death." 
The  statement  in  every  case  is  direct  and  without  intervening 
ellipsis  of  any  kind  whatever,  and  to  introduce  water  is  to  murder 
the  truth.  While  these  phrases  are  complete  in  themselves  thej' 
may  be  enlarged  by  a  statement  of  the  agency  by  which  they  are 
effected ;  but,  in  the  present  case,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
agency  effecting  these  baptisms,  but  simplj'  with  the  baptisms  de- 
clared to  be  eflected.  And  these  are  as  destitute  of  water  as  is 
"Jesus  Christ"  and  "his  death." 

n.  "  The  reality  has  already  taken  place,  but  it  is  represented 
in  figure  as  taking  place  in  the  ordinance  and  by  the  ordinance." 


PROFESSOR    RIPLEY    AND    OTHER    COMMENTATORS.       253 

Answer:  This  admitted  distinction  between  the  real  baptism  and 
the  symbolization  of  that  baptism  in  a  rite,  covers  radical  truth. 
It  is  the  real  baptism  received  by  every  true  Christian  of  which 
Paul  speaks  and  not  of  its  shadow}^  symbol.  The  Christian  is 
really  "  baptized  into  Christ,"  "  into  his  death"  (which  are  equiv- 
alent baptisms),  that  is,  he  is  brought  under  the  full  influence  of 
Christ  as  Lord  and  atoning  Redeemer,  by  the  H0I3'  Ghost  work- 
ing in  him  faith  and  repentance,  and  thus  made  partaker  of  remis- 
sion of  sin  and  newness  of  life.  Tliere  is  in  all  this,  no  death  of 
the  Christian,  that  can  be  exhibited,  it  is  Christ  that  dies  ;  there 
is  no  burial  of  the  Christian  that  can  be  exhibited,  it  is  Christ 
that  is  buried ;  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  Christian  that  can 
be  exhibited,  it  is  Christ  that  rises  from  the  dead  and  from  the 
grave.  There  is  but  one  tiling  pertaining  to  Christian  life  which 
can  be  exhibited  by  symbol,  and  that  is  its  purifying  nature  ; 
this  is  done  by  the  pure  water  of  the  rite.  And  this  is  that  which 
God  has  ordained  to  be  done. 

Dr.  Carson  (p.  279)  says,  "I  arraign  our  opponents  as  estab- 
lishing innumerable  false  principles  of  interpretation,  and  as 
trampling  on  many  of  the  clearest  laws  of  language.  Here,  then, 
let  me  be  met."     I  have  endeavored  to  plead  to  this  arraignment. 

Professor  Ripley  and  other  Baptist  Commentators. 

1.  Professor  Ripley,  of  Newton  Baptist  Theological  Seminary 
(Christian  Baptism,  pp.  83-97),  has  given  this  passage  an  ex- 
tended examination.  If  this  examination  has  not  yielded  such 
results  as  fairly  belong  to  the  language  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
failure  can  be  attributed  neither  to  the  want  of  a  Christian  spirit, 
nor  of  ample  learning  on  the  part  of  this  christian  Scholar.  In 
addition  to  what  has  been  already  said  a  few  points  ou\y  need 
claim  attention.  The  translation  of  v.  4  is  important  both  doc- 
trinally  and  critically.  The  translation  given  by  Prof.  Ripley  is, 
"  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  his  death."  The  translation  in 
the  Baptist  Version  is  the  same,  "  buried  with  him  bj-  the  immer- 
sion into  his  death."  Stuart,  Bloomfield,  Alford,  and  others,  give 
the  same  translation.  The  incalculable  difference  between  bap- 
tism into  simple  death  and  "  baptism  into  his  death"  is  shown  by 
the  following  passage  from  Irenaeus,  975,  "  Quemadmodum  Serpens 
Evam  seduxit  ...  sic  et  hi  in  mortem  demergunt  sibi  credentes." 
Baptism  into  death  =  cZ(/2ngr  ^/low  shalt  die.     "Baptism  into  his 


254  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

death  "  =  release  from  sin  and  its  death  penalty.  The  definite 
article  with  ftdTzriffiJM  indicates  a  particular  baptism  ;  as  does  the 
definite  article  with  Odvarov  indicate  a  particular  death;  ^'We  are 
buried  with  Christ  by  the  baptism  which  is  into  the  death  of 
Christ."  This  is,  no  doubt,  the  true  translation.  It  is  doctrin- 
ally  important,  because  it  teaches,  that  all  the  blessings  of  Chris- 
tian life  are  concentred  in  Christ's  death;  and  are  appropriated, 
not  by  a  dipping  into  water,  nor  by  a  baptism  into  death  (real  or 
emblematic)  but  by  the  baptism  which  is  into  Christ's  death, 
efiected  not  by  man  through  a  rite,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost  uniting 
to  Christ  and  making  participant  in  all  the  blessings  of  his  sacri- 
ficial death.  This  real  baptism  of  the  soul  into  Christ,  and  into 
his  death,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  set  forth  as  to  its  purifying 
nature  in  a  rite  by  symbol  water. 

This  translation  is  important,  critically,  because  it  gives  clear 
and  bold  relief  to  the  nexus  of  the  Christian's  burial  with  Christ. 
The  qualifying  antecedent  for  burial  with  the  slain  Lamb  of  God 
in  his  rock  sepulchre  is,  baptism  into  his  atoning  death  upon 
the  Cross. 

This  precludes,  in  the  most  absolute  manner,  the  connection  of 
burial  with  Christ  with  a  dipping  in  water.  It  also  arrests  the 
removal  of  the  body  of  Christ  from  its  rock  sepulchre  to  be  de- 
posited at  the  botton  of  a  pool  of  water,  that  the  baptized  may 
there  lie  buried  with  him  "for  a  moment"  (Carson),  or,  be 
"buried  with  him  by  baptism,  by  being  plunged  into  the  water" 
(Gale). 

2.  Prof.  Ripley  loses  the  benefit  of  his  just  translation  by 
eliding  it  from  his  argument,  and  constructing  a  new  basis  on 
which  he  plants  himself.  This  basis  is  as  foreign  in  its  nature 
from  that  furnished  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  any  two  things  can  be. 
His  argument  is  this:  "  The  burying  is  performed  bij  bajMsm,  an 
external  rite.  ...  It  is  8cd  rou  fianriffiiazo^  BY  baptism  that  we  are 
buried.  .  .  .  Baptism  is  here  represented  as  the  very  thing.,  the 
very  instrument,  or  more  properly,  the  very  act,  by  which,  or  by 
means  of  which  we  are  buried."  The  italics  and  capitals  are  as 
given  by  Prof.  Ripley. 

In  a  note  we  arc  told  :  "  It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that 
the  burying  is  performed  by  baptism,  and  thus  refers  to  an  exter- 
nal act." 

The  sine  qua  non  in  the  argument  of  Prof.  Ripley,  and  which 
he  tells  us  is  "  important  to  bear  iu  mind,"  is,  that  the  baptism  in 


PROFESSOR    RIPLEY    AND    OTHER    COMMENTATORS.      255 

the  passage  is  "  an  external  act."  But  where  is  the  authority  for 
this  statement?  There  is  none  attempted  to  be  given.  It  is 
opposed  to  every  feature  of  the  passage.  The  word  for  burial 
(ffuverd^Tj/jiev)  is  unfavorable  to  it.  Its  meaning,  as  approved  by 
Prof.  Riple}',  "we  were  interred,  or  covered  up  in  a  grave,  or  laid 
in  a  tomb  "  is  not  appropriate  to  a  dipping  in  water.  The  prep- 
osition in  composition  shows  that  there  is  no  reference  to  water, 
but  to  the  rock  within  which  Christ  was  buried,  not  baptized  (!). 
It  was  only  in  that  rock  sepulchre  that  we  could  be  buried-m^/i 
him.  The  argument  of  the  Apostle  is  made  as  worthless  as  a 
broken  reed  b}'^  making  it  to  lean  on  an  external  rite.  Paul  would 
never  undertake  to  prove  that  Christians  did  not  and  could  not 
live  in  sin,  because  they  had  professed  through  a  rite,  that  they 
would  not  do  so.  The  language  of  the  Holy  Spirit  excludes  "  an 
external  act"  as  explicitly  as  it  can  be  done  by  the  Greek  language. 
It  is  impossible  to  baptize  the  body  or  the  soul  "  into  the  death 
of  Christ"  hy  an  external  ac<,  just  as  it  is  impossible  to  dip  "into 
insensibility"  or  "  into  sleep."  But  the  state  or  condition  indi- 
cated by  "  Baptism  into  insensibility,"  "  Baptism  into  sleep," 
may  be  induced  by  appropriate  agencies,  and  so,  that  state  or 
condition  indicated  by  "the  baptism  of  the  soul  into  the  death  of 
Christ"  may  be  effected  through  the  appropriate  agenc}',  which  is 
only  and  solely  the  divine  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  error  of  converting  this  baptism  into  "  an  external  act  "  is 
farther  shown  by  its  rendering  the  passage  thoroughly  imprac- 
ticable for  intelligible  interpretation.  Prof.  Ripley  considers 
[iaizri'^u)  to  express  an  "  act,"  what  act  he  does  not  say.  If  it  ex- 
presses any  act  it  must  be  a  definite  act.  Carson  saj's  it  is  dip ; 
Gale  uses  plunge  to  expound  this  passage.  But  as  dip  is  not 
plunge,  nor  plunge  dip,  the  Greek  word,  if  it  expresses  the  dis- 
tinctive idea  of  either,  cannot  express  that  of  the  other.  Booth 
objects  to  plunge,  and  the  "  Baptist  Quarterly "  objects  to  dip. 
The  Baptist  Version  adopts  "  immerse ; "  but  this  does  not 
express  any  definite  act,  nor  action  embracing  varied  definite  ele- 
ments, but  condition  effected  by  some  unexpressed  act,  which  may 
be  endlessly  multiplied  and  varied  within  the  limits  of  com- 
petency to  effect  the  demanded  condition.  To  abandon  act  and 
adopt  condition  as  the  demand  of  /?a7rr:Jw,  requires  the  revolu- 
tion and  abandonment  of  Baptist  argumentation  from  the  begin- 
ning. Beside  this,  the  noun  (,3d7:TC(r;j.a)  which  appears  in  this 
passage  (but  which  does  not  appear  in  Classic  Greek)  has  no 


256  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

physical  application  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  a  matter  of  no 
moment  whether  "the  act"  of  Prof,  Ripley  be  represented  by 
"dip"  or  "plnnge,"  or  by  the  "immerse"  of  the  Version,  each 
Is  alike  destructive  to  all  grammar  or  logic  in  the  passage  :  where 
it  is  completed  on  that  basis — "  As  many  as  have  been  dipped, 
plunged,  or  immersed  in  water  into  Christ,  have  been  dipped, 
plunged,  or  immersed  in  water  into  his  death;  buried  with  him 
b}^  dipping,  plunging,  or  immersing  in  water  into  his  death."  In 
such  a  construction  a  double  and  impossible  7'6le  is  assigned  to 
these  verbs,  and  to  make  a  rational  construction  j'ou  must  wholl}'- 
recast  it  and  abandon  (not  interpret)  the  words  of  inspiration. 
And  this  Prof.  Ripley  is  constrained  to  do  when  his  argument  is 
based,  as  it  is,  upon  the  partial  quotation,  "  buried  with  him  by 
baptism,"  omitting  "  into  his  death"  (which  the  Holy  Spirit  gives 
as  defining  the  baptism)  and  substituting  "  in  water." 
■  And  tliis  line  of  argument,  abandoning  that  portion  of  the  text 
in  which  is  its  jjulsating  life,  is  followed  by  Prof.  Chase,  Prof 
Jewett,  Dr.  Carson,  Dr.  Gale,  and  every  other  Baptist  writer  with 
whom  I  am  acquainted,  and  has  been  urged  for  nearl}^  two  cen- 
turies, from  Gale  to  this  hour,  as  I  have  just  read  in  the  "  Western 
Recorder  "  "  the  man  whose  hands  had  buried  me  in  baptism." 

3.  Prof  Rii)ley  sa3^s,  verj' justly,  "The  expressions,  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ,  and  baptized  into  his  death,  require  explana- 
tion." These  phrases  are  the  hinges  on  which  the  interpretation 
of  the  passage  turns.  As  they  are  understood  or  misunderstood, 
the  passage  will  be  understood  or  misunderstood. 

Prof.  Ripley,  in  elucidation  of  these  phrases,  appeals  to  Matt. 
3  :  11,  correcting  the  translation  thus,  "  I  baptize  you  unto  repent- 
ance (ek  /isTfivmav),  that  is  ijito  repentance."  And  adds,  "  The 
meaning  of  this  declaration  I  understand  to  be  this,  I  baptize  you 
into  an  acknowledgment  of  repentance ;  so  that  by  this  bap)tisin 
you  acknowledge  yourselves  to  he  in  a  state  of  Repentance ;  in  other 
words,  by  submitting  to  this  baptism  you  profess  repentance  and 
bind  yourselves  to  a  life  of  amendment." 

What  Prof.  Ripley  says  respecting  "acknowledgment"  and 
"profession"  is,  undoubtedly,  involved  in  the  reception  of  this  ritual 
baptism  of  John,  but  the  form  of  liis  statement  is  not  an  interpre- 
tation of  tlie  phrase  used  b}'  John.  The  Forerunner  came  {y.-rjp()aawv 
lidmiiTfm  /j.eravoiac;  elq  a<fS(Ttv  urmintdv)  "preaching  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance into  the  remission  of  sius"  (Luke  3  :  3).  This  preaching 
of  John  liad  two  elements:  1.  Repentance;  2.  Baptism  into  the 


PROFESSOR    RIPLEY    AND    OTHER    COMMENTATORS.      257 

remission  of  sins.  He  makes  Repentance  precede  the  baptism 
into  the  remission  of  sins,  and  to  be  immediately  causative  of  it. 
Repentance  is  represented  as  effecting  the  baptism  into  the  remis- 
sion of  sins ;  by  which  phrase  is  expressed  the  most  thorough  and 
complete  remission  of  sins.  This  certainly  is  the  doctrine  every- 
where in  the  Bible ;  and  that  it  is  the  import  of  this  phrase  is 
conclusively  shown  by  that  analogous  one  used  by  Josephus — 
una  p-iOrfZ  elg  dvacffOr^ffcav.  Here  beyond  all  question  drunkenness 
is  represented  as  precedent  and  causative  of  the  "  baptism  into 
insensibility."  Wine  baptizes  into  drunkenness ;  and  drunkenness 
baptizes  into  insensibility'.  The  Holy  Spirit  baptizes  into  repent- 
ance ;  and  repentance  baptizes  into  the  remission  of  sins. 

This  was  the  preaching  of  John  in  which  there  was  7io  water. 
But  John  observed  a  rite  in  which  there  was  water,  and  of  this  rite 
he  said  (using  the  order  and  simple  Dative  of  Luke)  :  'Eyoj  vdan 
(iaTzriXu)  eiq  fierdwcav  "I  with  water  baptize  into  repentance."  This 
language  does  not  change  the  baptism  from  a  baptism  into  repent- 
ance to  a  baptism  into  water,  nor  in  an^'wise  change  the  essential 
value  of  the  phrase  baptism  into  repentance ;  but  the  additional 
statement  that  John,  and  not  Christ,  is  the  baptizer,  and  that  water, 
and  not  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  the  agency,  teaches  that  the  baptism 
into  repentance  is  not  effected  as  a  reality,  but  only  by  a  s3anbol. 
And  the  office  of  a  symbol  exhausts  the  function  and  the  power 
of  water  in  this  phrase.  To  give  it  any  other  place  in  the  rite 
than  that  of  an  illustrative  symbol  agency  is  a  destructive  per- 
version of  the  words  of  inspiration.  There  is  no  authority  for 
introducing  "into  an  acknowledgment  of"  into  this  baptism. 
The  baptism  is  "  into  repentance  "  whether  in  the  preaching  or 
in  the  rite.  Its  qualification  is  to  be  found  in  the  agency.  In 
the  preaching  of  John  the  agency  is  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
therefore  "  the  baptism  into  repentance  "  is  a  real  change  in  the 
condition  of  the  soul  begetting  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  and  issuing 
into  the  remission  of  sins ;  but  in  the  rite  of  John  the  agency  is 
pure  water,  and  consequently^  it  is  but  a  symbolization  of  the 
purification  induced  by  the  real  baptism  into  repentance  =  into 
the  remission  of  sins.  When  Prof.  Ripley  says,  "  By  this  baptism 
you  acknowledge  yourself  to  be  in  a  state  of  repentance ^''^  he  must 
get  "  state  of  repentance,"  or  "  state  "  in  which  the  soul  is  thor- 
oughly under  the  influence  of  repentance,  from  the  phrase  "  bap- 
tism into  repentance,"  which  is  in  truth  the  meaning  of  the  phrase. 
So  "  baptized  into  Christ ;"  the  phrase  imports  that  the  soul  is 

17 


258  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

brought  into  "  a  state  "  in  which  it  is  thoroughly  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Christ;  and  "baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ"  imports 
that  the  soul  is  brought  into  "  a  state  "  in  ivhich  it  is  thoroughly 
under  the  influence  of  the  death  of  Christ.  To  expound  these 
phrases  by  the  unauthorized  introduction  of  "  into  the  acknowl- 
edgment OF  "  is  destructive  criticism. 

Further  Explanation. 

As  this  point  raised  by  Prof.  Ripley  enters  profoundly  into  and 
controls  the  interpretation  of  the  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament, 
it  may  be  well  to  indicate  more  fully  the  sources  whence  a  true 
interpretation  must  be  derived. 

[id-Ttu.  In  the  phrase  "  ISdnTwv  rdv  r.i-Xov  di^  to  xp^I^^  clipping 
the  robe  into  the  d^'e,"  all  will  unite  in  saj'ing  that  the  robe  is 
put  into  the  dye  for  the  purpose  of  imparting  to  the  robe  the  full 
distinctive  color  which  belongs  to  the  dye,  whatever  that  may*be, 
whether  yellow,  blue,  or  purple. 

The  phrase  "  ivijSacl'ev  ei'c  tov  xrjpdv  Tcb  Tzods  he  dipped  the  feet 
into  the  wax,"  shows  that  the  feet  were  put  into  the  wax  in  order 
that  they  might  be  brought  fully  under  the  distinctive  (adherent) 
quality  of  wax. 

This  communication  of  a  distinctive  quality  by  dipping  into 
something  which  has  such  quality  and  can  thus  impart  it  to  the 
object  dipped  into  it,  is  denoted  when  neither  the  object  receiving 
the  quality,  nor  that  which  communicates  the  qualit}^,  admits  of  a 
dipping  in  fact.  Thus,  "/?r/-r£Ta£  bnu  twv  ipav-aaiw^  ij  (I'oy-f]  the  soul 
is  imbued  by  the  thoughts."  In  this  phrase  the  soul  is  represented 
as  brought  under  the  distinctive  quality  of  the  thoughts  by  the  same 
verb  as  was  used  in  the  previous  phrases.  The  end  secured  is  of 
the  same  general  nature,  but  the  process  is  wholly  diverse.  The 
soul  cannot  be  dipped  "into  the  thoughts,"  neither  can  the 
thoughts  impart  their  quality  in  any  such  way. 

In  the  phrase  "  duauxrwrj  ftefta/j-iiivov  si^  i3dOoq  imbued  with  integ- 
rity into  the  depth  of  the  soul,"  the  distinctive  quality  of  "integ- 
rity "  is  represented  (again  by  the  same  word)  as  communicated 
to  the  soul  not  by  dipping  the  soul  into  it — in  fact  that  is  impos- 
sible— but  by  integrity  penetrating  and  pervading  the  soul  as  a 
coloring  quality',  reaching  to  its  innermost  depths.  The  following 
passage  will  illustrate  the  idea:  "Ten  years  ago  I  imbued  mj^self 
with  him  (Tennyson)  thoroughly.     Like  an  animal  that  is  fed 


BanriZd)  dq  DEVELOPS    QUALITY.  259 

on  madder  I  was  dyed  in  his  color  to  the  A'ery  bones."  Imbued 
=  "  dyed  in  his  color."  These  are  illustrations  of  a  like  generic 
effect  (distinctive  quality)  communicated,  the  same  verb  (Sdnruj) 
characterizing  the  effect,  but  where  the  processes  bj'  which  the 
effect  is  secured  have  nothing  in  common. 

^anziZu}.  The  following  phrases  express  the  purpose  to  develop 
the  distinctive  quality  of  the  several  fluids  named  over  the  objects 
bajDtized  into  them:  1.  "si?  rrjv  ?.t,wTjV  ;5a7rrc^ovrec  baptizing  them 
into  the  lake  ;"  the  design  was  to  develop  the  distinctive  (suffo- 
cating) influence  of  liquids  over  human  beings  baptized  into  them. 
2.  "zovrov  ££?  TO  udwp  l^aTzri'^Duai.  the}'  baptize  the  pole  into  the  water," 
for  the  purpose  of  developing  the  distinctive  (gold-bearing)  quality 
of  the  water,  the  pole  being  thus  covered  with  gold  particles.  3. 
"tcD  ftarzuffOivTi  £;?  to  udcup  everything  baptized  into  the  water;", 
thus  the  distinctive  (salt)  quality  of  this  water  was  developed, 
incrusting  with  salt  whatever  was  baptized  into  it.  4.  " /SaTrrj'^s.'v 
e}q  ydla  yovaub':  baptize  it  into  breast-milk,"  to  develop  its  distinc- 
tive (emollient)  quality. 

These  are  sntficient  cases  to  show  that  iSanri^stv  eU  is  familiarly 
used  with  the  clear  design  to  develop  the  distinctive  quality  of  that 
into  which  an  object  is  baptized,  with  a  view  to  such  quality  being 
communicated  to  or  exerted  over  the  baptized  object. 

This  same  form  is  used  to  denote  the  development  of  character- 
istic quality  when  neither  the  object  spoken  of  as  baptized,  nor 
the  regimen  of  ek  into  which  the  baptism  is  (verbally)  said  to 
take  place,  will  admit  of  any  baptism  in  fact. 

One  case  of  this  kind  is  found  in  that  passage  of  Josephus  al- 
ready referred  to,  "  [islianriaiii'^ov  und  ijAOt^i;  elq  dvaiaOrjiriav  baptized 
by  drunkenness  into  insensibility."  Here  ^''baptized  into  insensi- 
bility" is  used  to  denote  the  insensibility  induced  by  profound 
drunkenness  as  bearing  upon  the  drunkard.  The  same  verbal 
form  (baptized  into)  is  used  as  in  the  case  of  physical  substances, 
and  the  result  (development  of  characteristic  quality)  is  the  same, 
but  the  processes  have  nothing  in  common.  The  one  is  effected 
by  actual  "  baptizing  into  a  lake,"  or  "  gold-bearing  fountain,"  or 
"salt-saturated  water,"  or  "emollient  milk,"  while  the  other  is 
effected  by  drinking  deeply  of  intoxicating  liquor.  A  parallel 
passage  is  furnished  l)y  Clem.  Rom.,  "  Tzapaneaouaa  e\q  idOjiv  the 
feast  pausing  into  drunkenness  ;"  and,  also,  by  Clem.  Alex.,  "ek 
dvat<70Tj(Tia'^  otzo  (pEpoijAvrj  carrying  down  into  insensibility."  In  all 
these  cases  the  verb  expends  its  force  through  ei?  upon  the  regi- 


260  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

men  ot  that  preposition  which  can  only  be  translated  into.  Clem. 
Alex,  also  speaks  of  a  baptism  "  dq  omov  into  sleep,"  and  Clem. 
Rom.  uses  a  parallel  phrase,  "e/c  vnvw  xaraTrsfTovrwv  having  fallen 
info  SLEEP."  The  former  of  these  writers  uses  a  still  fuller  and 
if  possible  a  more  unmistakable  form  of  baptism,  "  ix  awippnaov^q 
£{?  -Kopveiav  jSanrt^ouffc  they  baptize  out  of  chastity  into  unchastity." 

Such  passages  as  these  place  beyond  controversy  the  use  of 
the  phrase  [iaTTTiZio  e;c  to  develop  the  influence  of  the  distinctive 
quality  of  the  associate  regimen  over  the  baptized  object.  And  in 
this  established  truth  we  have  the  nou  (rzih  which  must  be  occupied 
in  order  to  the  only  just  and  intelligible  interpretation  of  the  bap- 
tisms of  the  New  Testament. 

John  preaches  the  ^^  j^dnTcffp.a  /jszaxnaq  elq  acpemv  afiapr'-wj  the  bap- 
tism, of  repentance  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  a  phrase  develop- 
ing the  peculiar  power  belonging  to  the  remission  of  sius  in  rela- 
tion to  the  guilty  who  share  in  its  baptism.  John  administers  a 
rite  in  which  the  baptism  which  he  preached  as  a  spiritual  neces- 
sity (ek  iizrmoimi)  is  declared  verbally,  and  symbolized  as  to  its 
nature  by  pure  water. 

So,  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  "  the  baptism  is  into 
Jesus  Christ,"  developing  the  characteristics  which  belong  to 
"Jesus  Christ,"  and  applying  them  in  their  power  to  "as  many 
as  are  baptized  into  him  ;  "■  and  in  like  manner,  "  baptism  into  his 
death"  develops  the  characteristic  of  his  atoning  death  as  applied 
to  the  guilt}'  and  the  perishing  who  share  in  this  baptism. 

We  are  hereby  not  only  furnished  with  the  means  of  explain- 
ing the  phrases  immediately  before  us  (which  Prof.  Ripley  justly 
regards  as  most  important),  but  with  a  principle  which  applies  to 
all  like  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  all  baptisms  of  the 
New  Testament  do,  without  exception,  belong  to  this  same  class. 
A  baptism  into  water  (or  any  other  physical  element)  is  unknown 
to  the  New  Testament.  That  a  human  being  should  be  baptized 
into  water  in  a  religious  rite  is  forI)id(len  b}'  the  meaning  of  /?«;:- 
T£^w,  wliicli  never  takes  out  what  it  puts  in.  That  water  should 
be  the  elenKmt  into  which  the  baptized  oV)ject  passes  is  forbidden 
by  the  grammatical  construction  which  always  exhibits  the  water 
of  the  rite  in  the  Dative,  as  a  symbol  agency.  That  the  element 
is  ideal,  and  the  baptism  a  si)iritual  state  or  condition  (realized  in 
the  soul  and  symbolized  in  the  rite),  is  made  as  sure  and  as  clear 
as  tlie  express  and  invariable  declaration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  can 


PROFESSOR    CHASE.  261 

make  it — "Xs  many  as  are  baptized  into  Christ,  are  baptized  into 
HIS  death;  buried  with  tiim  by  baptism  into  his  death." 

Professor  Chase  is  a  colleague  of  Professor  Ripley  in  Newton 
Theological  Seminary,  and  appeal  is  made  to  him  to  sustain  the 
statement — "  The  Apostle  himself  explains  what  he  means  by 
burying  when  he  adds  by  baptism.^^  The  interiDretation  given  by 
Prof.  Chase  is  this :  " '  Buried  with  him  by  baptism.'  The  lan- 
guage is  figurative.  The  word  ffuverd^rj/jiev  means  we  were  interred, 
or  covered  up  in  a  grave,  or  laid  in  a  tomb,  or  buried  with  Christ." 
There  is  no  figure  in  the  burial  of  Christ.  This  is  a  simple  fact. 
And  there  is  no  other  burial  spoken  of  in  fact  or  in  figure.  There 
is  a  burial  of  other  persons,  but  no  other  burial,  any  more  than 
there  are  other  crucifixions  when  "  our  old  man  (ffweffvauptoOrj)  is 
crucified  with  him."  The  statement  is  equally  explicit  in  both 
cases  that  there  is  but  one  burial,  and  that  is  Christ's ;  and  there 
is  but  one  crucifixion,  and  that  is  Christ's ;  but  in  that  one  burial 
and  in  that  one  ci-ucifixion  his  people  share,  not  through  some 
figurative  burial  or  figurative  crucifixion,  but  by  that  union  with 
Christ,  their  head,  which  the  Bible,  here  and  everywhere,  teaches. 
The  figure  is  the  union  with  Christ;  a  figurative  grave  is  a  fiction. 
That  this  is  so  is  shown  by  the  answer  given  by  Prof.  Chase  to 
the  question — "  How  buried  with  Christ  ?  By  baptism,  the  Apos- 
tle adds ;  and  this  addition  modifies  the  figure,  and  makes  the 
sense  as  clear  as  it  is  possible  for  express  words  to  make  it.  In 
or  by  baptism  Paul  and  Christians  were  buried.^''  It  is  truly  mar- 
vellous that  Prof.  Chase  could  see  that  "  buried  with  Christ "  is 
modified  by  "  the  addition  by  baptism,''''  and  failed  to  see  that  he 
had  not  given  the  modifying  addition  furnished  b}'  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Prof.  Chase  elides  from  the  divine  addition  "into  his  death,"  and 
taking  one-half  ("  by  baptism  ")  substitutes  into  water  for  the 
rejected  "  into  his  death." 

Prof.  Chase  must  amend  his  plea  and  show  how  "burial  with 
Christ "  in  his  rock  sepulchre,  is  modified  "  by  baptism  into  his 
DEATH,"  and  not  by  dipping  into  water. 

Prof.  Chase  seeks  to  nullify  the  objection,  that  ritual  baptism 
does  not  furnish  any  parallelism  with  the  co-crucifixion  of  Chris- 
tians and  Christ,  by  saying,  "  The  Apostle  does  not  teach  that 
believers  are  crucified  with  Christ  by  baptism,.^''  This  answer  ad- 
mits the  correctness  of  the  objection  so  far  as  to  there  being  no 
resemblance  to  a  crucifixion  in  the  dipping  into  water,  but  denies 
its  force  on  the  ground  that  we  are  not  said  to  be  "  crucified  with 


262  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Christ  hy  baptism''^  =  by  dii^ping  into  water.  His  answer  farther 
implies,  that  from  the  nature  of  a  dipping  into  water  we  could  not 
be  said  to  be  "  crucified  with  Christ "  by  it.  This  is  no  doubt 
true,  and  therefore  the  conversion  of  the  baptism  of  the  passage 
into  a  dipping  into  water  is  not  true.  The  baptism  of  Christians 
into  Christ,  and  thus  into  his  death,  secures  their  co-crucifixion 
{fTuvearaupmOrj)^  and  co-burial  (^auvsrafrjiizv')^  and  co-resurrection 
{auvT^yipO-qre).  That  we  maybe  "  crucified  with  Christ"  hy  bap- 
tism (not  such  as  Prof.  Chase  would  put  into  the  text,  but  by  such 
as  the  Holy  Spirit  has  put  there)  is  shown  by  the  language  of 
Basil  M.  (Ill,  1519),  ""Oorco  xa\  6  rui  Xpcarui  auffraupwOeiq  dcd  too 
jSanriff/xaro^ — So,  also,  he  that  is  crucified  with  Christ  by  the  bap- 
tism." Here  is  the  very  statement,  word  for  word,  which  Prof. 
Chase  rejects  as  an  impracticable  thing.  Basil  the  Great  used  as 
much  water  in  the  rite  as  Prof.  Chase,  and  yet  his  views  as  to 
what  constituted  Christian  baptism  diflTered  from  those  of  the 
Professor  as  much  as  a  '•'■baptism  into  the  death  of  Christ"  differs 
from  a  dipping  into  vtater.  Basil  believed,  what  Prof.  Chase  does 
not  believe,  that  by  the  rite  the  soul  is  united  to  Christ,  and  by 
virtue  of  this  union  is  crucified  with  him,  as  well  as  buried  with 
him,  and  rises  with  him.  We  neither  believe  with  Prof.  Chase, 
that  Christian  baptism  is  a  dipping  into  water,  nor  with  Basil, 
that  the  soul  is  united  to  Christ  by  a  rite  ;  but  we  do  believe,  that 
the  soul  is  united  to  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  union  with 
its  inseparable  effects  is  expressed  as  a  "  baptism  into  Ghrist,^^ 
and  a  "  baptism  into  his  death,^^  involving  ex  necessitate  rei  co- 
crucifixion,  co-burial,  and  co-resurrection. 

The  interpretation  of  this  passage  on  a  ritual  basis  will  not 
bear  examination  in  any  direction  save  one,  and  that  is — as  a 
moss-covered  relic  of  antiquity.  In  this  respect  it  is  unexcep- 
tionable. But  as  a  matter  of  Scripture  authority,  or  as  having 
the  sanction  of  a  just  exegesis,  it  has  not  the  slightest  claim  to 
our  faith. 

Rev,  Isaac  Errett  (editor  Christian  Standard)  says:  "In 
Bora,  6,  it  is  no  part  of  Paul's  intention  to  set  forth  the  design 
of  baptism ;  anything  of  that  to  be  gathered  from  his  language  is 
merely  incidental.  His  design  is  to  show,  from  their  death  to 
sin,  that  they  are  not  to  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound." 

Professor  J.  G.  Fee,  of  Berea,  Kentucky,  in  the  Christian  Stand- 
ard (Disciple  Baptist),  Aug.  15,  1874,.  is  disposed  to  abandon 
Rom,  6 :  1-4  and  Colos,  2 :  12  as  cases  of  physical  baptism.     He 


PROFESSOR    FEE,  263 

says :  "  It  is  true,  the  leading,  underlying  thought  is  death  to 
sin,  and  spiritual  resurrection  to  newness  of  life ;  and  in  Colos. 
2: 12  it  is  true  the  word  baptism  is  there  preceded  by  circumci- 
sion made  without  hands,  which  we  know  was  spiritual,  and  the 
Apostle  may  have  intended  simply  to  intensify  the  thought  by 
adding  '  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye  were  raised  with 
him  by  faith  of  the  power  of  God  who  raised  him  from  the  dead.' 
But  even  with  this  spiritual  view,  it  is  clear  to  my  mind  that  the 
thought  in  the  figurative  or  spiritual,  is  most  manifestly  drawn 
from  the  action  of  the  literal  and  material.'''' 

Answer:  1.  Thei-e  is  no  '■'•  the  action"  belonging  to  i^anzi'^w. 
The  acts  which  meet  the  demand  of  this  word  are  diverse  and 
contrary;  therefore  cannot  be  expressed  in  their  diversity  and 
contrariness  by  it ;  2.  Admitting  that  the  figurative  use  in  Rom. 
and  Colos.  arises  out  of  "the  literal  and  materiaV^  use,  it  is  a 
non-sequitur  to  say,  that  such  literal  and  material  use  is  to  be 
found  in  a  religious  rite.  Why  not  taken  directly  from  primary 
use  outside  of  the  religious  sphere  ?  3.  It  must  be  so  derived, 
(1.)  Because  ^anri'^ii)  does  not  take  out  what  it  puts  in ;  and  a 
dipping  (which  does  do  so),  is  not  a  baptism  ;  (2.)  Because  in 
the  baptism  of  Rom.  and  Colos.,  the  soul  is  not  taken  out  of  the 
baptism  into  which  it  is  baptized ;  and  therefore  it  cannot  be 
grounded  in  an  imaginary  ritual  baptism,  which  is  in  fact  but  a 
dipping;  but  must  be  grounded  in  those  real  baptisms  outside 
of  the  religious  sphere  out  of  which  the  baptized  object  is  not  re- 
moved. 

Professor  Fee  quotes  Tholuck,  Conybeare  and  Howson,  Neander, 
Schafi',  Barnes,  Bloomfield,  Wesley,  Clarke,  Nevins,  Calvin  and  Lu- 
ther as  agreeing,  substantially,  in  the  language  of  Tholuck,  Rom. 
6  :  4,  "In  order  to  understand  the  figurative  use  of  baptism,  we 
must  bear  in  mind  the  well-known  fact  that  the  candidates  in  the 
primitive  church  were  immersed  in  water  and  raised  out  of  it 
again."  Answer  :  1.  If  "  the  primitive  church  "  means  the  post 
Apostolic  church,  then  it  is  a  sin  against  chronology  to  bring  a 
subsequent  practice  to  prove  an  antecedent  practice  ;  2.  When  in 
the  post  Apostolic  church  the  candidate  was  "  immersed  in  water 
and  raised  out  of  it  again  "  no  one  believed  such  covering  and 
uncovering  to  be  Christian  baptism  ;  3.  If  by  primitive  church  is 
meant  the  Apostolic  church,  then  there  is  a  bald  assumption  of 
the  question  at  issue.  Such  quotations  avail  nothing  to  the 
theory ;    4.  The  figurative  use  of  ^anrc^cu   and   pdnTcaua  in   the 


264  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Scriptures  no  more  rests  on  ritual  baptism  for  its  exposition,  than 
does  drunkenness  rest  for  its  exposition  on  the  effects  of  drink- 
ing from  the  fountain  of  Silenus  as  referred  to  by  Lucian  (Bac- 
chus VII) — "  When  an  old  man  drinks  and  Silenus  takes  posses- 
sion of  him  immediately  he  is  for  a  long  time  silent,  and  resem- 
bles one  heavy-headed  and  drunk  {Beliar.r'.<Tiievoj)y  How  much 
wisdom  would  there  be  in  expounding  wine  drunkenness  (==  bap- 
tism) by  this  Silenic  drunkenness  which  finds  its  character  de- 
pendent upon  and  expounded  by  the  precedent  wine  baptism  ? 
Just  as  much  wisdom  is  there  in  making  ritual  baptism  expositoiy 
of  the  figurative  baptism  of  Scripture,  from  which  it  derives  its 
existence  and  by  which  it  has  its  character.  This  is  "  putting 
the  cart  before  the  horse  "  in  a  fashion  to  make  the  plainest 
ploughboy  stare.  Ritual  baptism  is  but  a  symbol  resemblance 
to  the  antecedently  declared  real  (though  figurative)  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Is  the  figurative  use  of  iSa-KTc^M  by  Josephus 
and  Philo  based  in  ritual  baptism  ?  The  figurative  use  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  Josephus,  and  Philo  have  a  common  origin — the  physi- 
cal use  of  j3anTi!^(v  outside  of  the  Scriptures  ;  there  is  no  such  use 
in  the  Scriptures.  Water  used  with  [iaTzxi'^u}  no  more  gives  a 
physical  covering  use  to  this  word  in  a  ritual  baptism,  than  wine 
used  with  ^anriZui  gives  to  that  word  a  physical  covering  use  in  a 
drunken  baptism. 

OTHER   COMMENTATORS   AND    SCHOLARS. 

Professor  R.  Wilson.,  of  Ireland. 

Prof.  Wilson,  of  Belfast  (On  Baptism,  pp.  290,  295),  asks: 
"What  are  we  to  understand  by  'baptism  into  Jesus  Christ?' 
This  point  may  seem  simple  or  irrelevant,  and  it  has  been  often 
overlooked  in  the  discussion ;  yet  we  believe  it  to  be  so  vitally 
important  that  a  correct  answer  to  this  question  must  regulate 
and  control  the  interpretation  of  the  entire  passage. 

"  We  observe  then  that  there  is  no  emblem  whatever  indicated 
when  the  Apostle  speaks  of  baptism  into  Christ.  Whether  with 
Vitringa  we  understand  the  words  '  into  Christ '  as  denoting — 
into  the  acknowledgment  of  Christ.,  or  with  Tholuck,  into  partici- 
pation in  Christ.,  or  with  Haldane,  into  oneness  with  Christ,  or, 
with  others,  into  the  faith  of  Christ,  still,  in  none  of  its  patron- 
ized or  possible  varieties  is  the  import  symbolically  presented  in 
baptism. 


PRESIDENT    R.    HALLEY,   OF    ENGLAND.  265 

"  The  great  fact  iu  the  passage  is  baptism  into  Christ's  death, 
which  does  not  admit  of  being  symbolized  by  immersion ;  and 
grounded  on  the  fact,  is  the  momentous  conclusion,  that  in  this 
-baptism  we  are  joined  unto  the  Lord  in  his  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion. From  union  with  Christ  in  death,  union  with  him  in  the 
grave  follows  by  legitimate  and  necessary  deduction." 

Preaideni  R.  Halley^  of  England. 

President  Halley  (The  Sacraments,  pp.  327,  334)  says:  "Of 
what  Christian  truth  is  putting  into  the  water  a  symbol  ?  We  are 
told.  Of  the  burying  of  the  believer  with  Christ.  The  burying 
of  a  believer  with  Christ  is  no  more  a  Christian  truth  than  the 
going  in  at  the  strait  gate,  or  the  putting  on  the  helmet  of  sal- 
vation, or  the  anointing  the  eyes  with  e^'e-salve,  but  like  them  a 
figurative  expression  of  Scripture.  The  sacraments  of  Christ  are 
symbols  of  truth  and  not  of  figures. 

"  If  I  am  dead  with  Christ,  I  have  been  buried  with  him  in  my 
baptism,  not  into  water,  but  by  his  Spirit  into  his  death.  That 
baptism  is  the  funeral  solemnity  of  a  believer,  or  his  interment 
in  the  tomb  of  Christ,  is  a  doctrine  which  has  no  sure  warranty 
in  Scripture.  If  we  attempt  to  unite  the  ideas  of  a  burial  and  a 
purification,  we  have  before  us  the  ludicrous  image  of  a  man 
washing  in  a  grave  or  dying  in  a  bath.  The  burial  of  a  believer 
with  Christ,  I  repeat,  being  only  a  figurative  expression,  cannot 
be  represented  in  baptism." 

Dr.  Edward  Beecher  (On  Baptism,  p.  113)  says:  "Not  only  is 
it  true  that  external  baptism  is  not  meant  in  Rom.  6  :  3,  4,  but  it 
is  also  true,  that  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  any  part  of  the 
language  is  taken  from  that  rite.  The  language  would  have  been 
just  as  it  is,  if  the  rite  had  been  administered  by  sprinkling,  or 
even  if  there  had  been  no  external  rite  whatever."  This  is  true 
beyond  any  successful  impeachment. 

Prof.  Stuart  (Comm.  in  loc.) :  " '  Baptized  into  Christ.'  The 
sense  of  this  depends  on  the  meaning  of  the  formula  Baptize  into 
any  one.  Here  the  sense  is,  '  as  many  as  have  become  devoted 
to  Christ  by  baptism.' 

"  We  have  been  baptized  into  his  death,  i.  e..  We  have,  as  it  were, 
been  made  partakers  of  his  death  by  baptism.  The  being  bap- 
tized into  his  death  is  therefore  an  internal,  moral,  spiritual 
thins:. 


266  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

"TFe  have  been  buried  with  him,  then^  by  baptism  into  his  death, 
i.e.,  We  are  (by  being  baptized  into  his  death)  buried  as  he  was, 
auverdf-qixzv,  wliere  (Tw^  means  like,  or  like  manner  with. 

"  Most  commentators  have  maintained  that  auverdfrnitv  has  hei'e 
a  necessary  reference  to  the  mode  of  literal  baptism,  which  they 
say  was  by  immersion  ;  and  this,  they  think,  affords  ground  for 
the  employment  of  the  image  used  by  the  Apostle,  because  im- 
mersion (under  water)  may  be  compared  to  burial  (under  the 
earth).  It  is  difficult,  perhaps,  to  obtain  a  patient  re-hearing  for 
this  subject,  so  long  regarded  by  some  as  being  out  of  fair  dis- 
pute. Nevertheless  as  my  own  conviction  is  not,  after  protracted 
and  repeated  examinations,  accordant,  here,  with  that  of  com- 
mentators in  general,  I  feel  constrained,  briefly  to  state  my 
reasons.  .  .  . 

"  Indeed  what  else  but  a  moral  burying  could  be  meant,  when 
the  Apostle  goes  on  to  say  :  We  are  buried  with  him,  (not  only  by 
baptism,  but)  by  baptism  into  his  death  ? 

"  And  although  the  words,  into  his  death  are  not  inserted  in 
Colos.  2:  12,  yet,  as  the  following  verse  shows,  the}^  are  plainly 
implied. 

"  I  cannot  see,  therefoi'e,  that  there  is  any  more  necessarj^  refer- 
ence, here,  to  the  modus  of  baptism,  than  there  is  to  the  7nodus  of 
resurrection.     The  one  may  as  well  be  maintained  as  the  other." 

Prof.  Charles  Hodge  (Comm.  in  loc.) :  "  In  the  phrase  to  be 
baptized  iyito  any  one,  the  word  rendered  into  has  its  usual  force 
as  indicating  the  object,  design,  or  result,  for  which  anything  is 
done.  To  be  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  or  Moses,  or  Paul, 
therefore,  means  to  be  baptized  in  order  to  be  united  to  Christ, 
or  Moses,  or  Paul,  as  their  followers,  the  recipients  of  their  doc- 
trines, and  expectants  of  the  blessings  which  they  have  to  be- 
stow. 

"In  like  manner,  in  the  expression  baptized  into  his  death,  the 
preposition  expresses  the  design  and  the  result.  The  meaning, 
therefore,  is,  we  were  baptized  in  order  that  we  might  die  with 
him,  i.  e.,  that  we  should  be  united  to  him  in  his  death  and  pai'- 
takers  of  its  benefits.  Paul  uses  the  expression  bapti^zed  into 
Christ  not  for  the  mere  external  or  formal  profession  of  the  re- 
ligion of  the  gospel,  but  for  the  cordial  reception  of  it,  of  which 
the  submission  to  the  rite  of  baptism  was  the  public  and  ap- 
pointed expression. 

"  The  meaning,  therefore,  is,  that  those  who  have  sincerely  em- 


DR.   PUSET.  267 

braced  Jesus  Christ,  have  done  it  so  as  to  be  united  to  him,  con- 
formed to  his  image,  and  the  design  for  which  he  died.  Christ 
died  to  save  his  people  from  their  sins  and  to  purify  to  himself  a 
peculiar  people.  Such  being  the  nature  and  design  of  the  gospel, 
if  we  accept  of  Christ  at  all,  it  is  that  we  should  die  with  him,  i.  e., 
that  we  should  attain  the  object  for  which  he  died,  viz.,  deliver- 
ance frovi  sin. 

"  The  words  into  death  are  evidently  to  be  connected  with  the 
word  baptism. 

"It  does  not  seem  necessary  to  suppose,  that  there  is  any  allu- 
sion to  the  mode  of  baptism,  as  though  that  rite  was  compared  to 
a  burial." 

Certainly  not ;  the  baptism  of  Christ  and  the  burial  of  Christ 
are  as  distinct  as  is  the  east  from  the  west.  And  so  all  Patristic 
writers  believed. 

Dr.  Pusey. 

Dr.  Pusey,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oriel  College,  on  the  in- 
terpretation of  this  passage  (Holy  Baptism,  pp.  78-80)  says  :  "  All 
that  a  large  number  of  Christians,  at  the  present  day,  find  in  this 
passage,  is  that  Baptism  represents  (as  it  does)  to  us  our  profes- 
sion, that  we,  having  been  baptized,  and  having  acknowledged 
Christ  as  our  Lord,  are  hound  to  lead  a  new  aud  godly  life.  This 
is  very  true,  and  is  certainly  in  the  passage ;  but  the  question  is, 
whether  this  be  all?  The  Fathers  certainly  saw  herein,  not  only 
the  death  unto  sin,  which  we  were  to  die,  but  that  also  which  in 
Christ  we  had  died  by  our  having  been  baptized  and  incorporated 
into  Christ ;  not  the  life  onlj'  which  we  are  to  live,  but  the  actual 
life  which  by  Baptism  was  infused  in  us.  St.  Paul  speaks  through- 
out of  actual  facts,  which  have  taken  place  in  us,  and  duties  con- 
sequent upon  them.  'We  were  all  baptized  into  Christ,'  i.  e.,  into 
a  participation  of  Christ,  and  his  most  precious  death,  and  union 
with  him;  '  we  were  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that 
we  may  also  walk  in  newness  of  life.'  ...  A  most  intimate  com- 
munion with  the  acts  in  our  Lord's  own  holy  life  and  death  is, 
by  the  original  language,  convex'ed.  It  were  much,  to  be  buried, 
to  be  crucified  with  him,  like  him ;  but  it  is  more  to  become  par- 
takers of  his  burial  aud  crucifixion  ;  to  be  (so  to  speak)  co-interred, 
co-crucified ;  to  be  included  in,  wrapt  around,  as  it  were,  in  his 
burial  and  crucifixion,  and  gathered  into  his  very  tomb  ;  and  this 
he  says  we  were  by  baptism :  transfused  into  his  death  (ffuvszd- 


268  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

<prj!iev)^  implanted  or  engrafted  into  it  (ffuiKpoTot)^  our  old  man  was 
thereby  nailed  to  his  very  cross  {awtaraopmOr^).  There  is  a  marked 
identification  with  our  Lord.  .  .  .  These  thoughts  were  promi- 
nently in  the  thoughts  of  the  ancient  church,  when  dwelling  on 
the  text ;  the  close  connection  of  what  Christ  had  done  for  us  on 
the  cross,  with  what  he  worketh  in  us  by  his  Spirit  in  baptism  : 
that  this  union  with  him  is  the  power  of  baptism,  and  that  from 
this  union  so  imparted  is  all  the  Christian's  strength  to  realize 
Christian  duty." 

To  this  interpretation  of  Dr.  Pusey,  so  far  as  the  interpretation 
itself  is  concerned,  there  is  but  little  exception  to  be  taken.  The 
exception  lies  against  the  alliance  of  the  interpretation  with  ritual 
baptism,  which  is  not  in  the  passage.  "The  Fathei's "  fell  into 
the  sad  error  of  unifying  the  real  baptism  by  the  Spirit  and  the 
ritual  baptism  by  water.  Hence  they  unhesitatingly  ascribed  all 
the  results  of  baptism  of  the  soul  by  this  divine  Agent  to  the  ritual 
use  of  water ;  not,  however,  to  the  water  merel}-,  but  as  having 
with  it  and  in  it  the  associated  Holy  Spirit.  Therefore  in  inter- 
preting a  passage  which  referred,  solely,  to  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  (as  in  the  passage  before  us)  they  ascribed  it  to  ritual  bap- 
tism, not  designing,  hereby,  to  exclude  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  mak- 
ing the  ritual  water  the  channel-way  through  which  his  divine 
influence  flowed.  For  this  reason  their  interpretation  of  a  passage, 
as  to  its  sentiment,  might  be  correct,  while  the  reference  of  it  to 
the  rite  might  be  wholly  wrong.  This  is  true  of  the  present  pas- 
sage. They  are  right  in  making  its  baptism  efficient  in  producing 
a  union  with  Christ,  and  thus  a  participation  in  the  fruits  of  his 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  No  just  intei'pretation  of  the 
words  of  inspiration,  as  they  stand,  can  reach  any  other  result. 
As  the  words  demand  it,  so  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  requires 
it.  Augustine  justly  remarks:  "It  is  said,  without  exception, 
'  So  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  his  death.'  And  this  is  said  to  prove,  that  we  are  dead  to 
sin."  It  is  no /jroq/"  that  any  man  is  dead  to  sin,  because  he  has 
professed  so  to  be.  Christianity  demands,  that  every  disciple 
should  be  baptized  into  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  baptism 
is  the  remission  of  sins  and  regeneration  to  newness  of  life,  and 
therefore,  Christianity  can  say,  the  man  who  lives  in  sin  and  not 
in  newness  of  life,  is  not  my  disciple.  The  charge  is  not,  that  he 
has  violated  a  ritual  profession ;  but  that  he  is  destitute  of  that 
life  which  every  true  disciple  receives  from  the  Holy  Ghost  by 


PATRISTIC    VIEWS  269 

"baptism  into  Christ."  Dr.  Pusey  and  the  Fathers  err,  not  as  to 
the  value  which  the}^  attribute  to  the  baptism  of  which  Paul 
speaks,  but  as  to  the  cause  of  that  baptism.  They  have  intro- 
duced ritualism  where  there  is  nothing  but  the  pure  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  There  is  a  failure  to  accept  and  to  be  satisfied  with 
the  interpretation  of  the  pure  text  of  inspiration.  A  very  just 
sentiment  of  Dr.  Pusey  may  here  be  applied  ver^^  forcibly — 
"Right  exposition  is  at  variance  with  all  heresy;  and  a  fuller 
and  more  literal  apprehension  of  Scripture  ?s,  at  the  same  time, 
a  shield  against  doctrinal  error.'" 

Patristic  Views. 

Error  never  remains  alone.  The  error  which  so  earl}'^  associ- 
ated ritual  baptism  with  baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit  gave  origin 
to  many  kindred  errors.  Patristic  writers  never  adopted  the 
modern  error  that  dipping  into  water  is  Christian  baptism  ;  but 
from  the  error  which  attributed  burial  with  Christ  to  baptism 
with  water,  instead  of  "baptism  into  his  death "  solel}'  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  thej^  adopted  the  related  error  of  covering  the  body 
in  water,  as  well  as  many  others  springing  from  the  same  seed. 
Among  these  errors  (closely  related  to  that  which  sought  to 
establish  a  resemblance  to  the  burial  of  Christ  by  putting  the 
body  under  the  water)  was  that  other  error,  which  sought  to  work 
out  a  resemblance  to  the  "three  days  and  three  nights"  of  burial 
by  putting  under  the  water  three  times;  which  thrice  dipping 
became  prolific  in  yet  other  expositions.  Inasmuch  as  ail  these 
errors  and  additions  very  early  associated  with  the  Christian  rite 
stand  or  fall  together,  it  may  be  well  to  look  at  the  statement  of 
some  which  are  closely  related  to  the  passage  under  consideration. 

Cj'ril  of  Jerusalem,  1080:  "  za^t  xarsduere  rpirov  slq  to  vowp^  xai 
Tzdhv  dvedusze'  xai  ivrauOd,  did  (7u;j.j36X<>v  ttjU  rpiTJiiepov  t»u  Xpiaroi)  aivir- 
Topevat  ra^jyV."  "And  ye  were  covered  over  thrice  into  the  water, 
and  again  uncovered  ;  and  thus  you  darkly  signified  by  symbol 
the  three  days'  burial  of  Christ.  For  as  our  Saviour  spent  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth ;  so  ye,  also,  by 
the  first  uncovering  imitate  the  first  day  of  Christ  in  the  earth, 
and  by  the  covering  the  night.  For  as  one  in  the  night  cannot 
see,  hut  one  in  the  da}'  lives  in  the  light ;  so  in  the  covering,  as 
in  the  night,  ye  saw  nothing ;  but  in  the  uncovering  again,  ye 
were  as  in  the  day.  And  in  this  ye  died  and  were  born  ;  and  that 
saving  water  was  to  you  both  grave  and  mother." 


270  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

There  is  just  as  much  scriptural  authority  for  this  triple  into 
and  out  of  the  water,  as  there  is  for  one.  And  there  is  just  as 
much  scriptural  authorit}^  for  the  symbolization  of  day  and  night 
by  putting  under  the  water  and  raising  above  the  Avater,  as  there 
is  for  such  symbolization  of  burial  and  resurrection.  And  there 
is  just  as  much  scriptural  authority  for  making  the  water  of 
Christian  baptism  "a  grave  and  a  mother"  as  there  is  for  either 
of  the  others.  And  there  is  just  as  much  scriptural  authority 
for  the  practice  of  these  early  errorists  in  putting  men  and  women 
into  the  water  naked  to  symbolize  "  naked  came  I  out  of  my 
mother's  womb,"  as  to  make  the  water  "  a  mother  and  a  woml)." 
That  is  to  say,  there  is  not  one  word  of  Scripture  to  sustain  any 
of  these  imaginative  follies. 

Leo  {ad  Palaestinos,  Ep.  81)  says:  "None  by  his  death  paid 
the  debt  of  another,  except  Christ  our  Lord,  in  whom  alone  all 
are  crucified,  all  dead,  buried,  and  raised  up." 

Origen,  IV,  1040:  "Si  mortui  sumus  peccato,  et  consepulti 
sumus  Christo,  et  consurreximus  cum  eo,  necessarium  videbitur 
secundum  banc  formam  ostendi  quoraodo  etiam  cum  ipso  tres 
dies  et  tres  noctes  in  corde  terrae  sepulti  fecerimus.  Et  vide  si 
possimus  tres  dies  consepulti  Christo  facere,  cum  plenam  Trini- 
tatis  scientiam  capimus.  .  .  . 

"  If  we  be  dead  to  sin  and  co-buried  with  Christ  (in  his  new 
sepulchre,  mentioned  just  before)  and  co-risen  with  him,  it  will 
seem  necessary,  according  to  this  form,  to  show,  how  also  we  are* 
buried  with  him  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the 
earth.  See,  if  we  can  make  three  days'  burial  with  Christ,  when 
we  receive  full  knowledge  of  the  Trinity.  The  Father  is  Light, 
and  in  his  Light,  which  is  the  Son,  we  see  Light,  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  we  make  also  three  nights,  when  we  destroy  the  father  of 
darkness  and  ignorance,  together  with  lying,  which  is  born  of 
him ;  and  in  the  third  place  we  destroy  the  spirit  of  error,  which 
inspires  false  prophets." 

These  diverse  interpretations  of  the  three  days  and  three  nights' 
burial  (equally  good  and  equally  bad)  nullify  each  other,  just  as 
the  marvellous  motherhood  and  nakedness  of  the  one  dipping 
(together  with  self-incongruity  and  Scripture  contradiction)  pre- 
cludes its  acceptance. 

IV,  1039:  On  the  page  preceding  the  quotation  just  made, 
there  is  another  passage  relating  to  this  subject,  not  without  in- 
terest: "But  some  one  may  ask,  why  the  Apostle  in  these  pas- 


Karaduaiq — Avaduaiq  271 

sages,  speaking  concerning  our  baptism  and  concerning  Jesus, 
should  say :  '  We  liave  been  co-buried  with  him  b}'  baptism  into 
death  ; '  and  elsewhere,  '  If  we  die — with  him,  we  shall,  also,  live 
— with  him ; '  and,  likewise,  '  If  we  suffer — with  him,  we  shall 
reign  —  with  him;'  and  never  sa_ys.  We  are  co-baptized  with 
Christ ;  since  as  death  is  joined  to  death,  and  life  to  life,  so,  also, 
it  seems  baptism  ought  to  be  joined  with  baptism.  But  see  how 
much  caution  there  is  in  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  for  he  says : 
'  Whosoever  of  us  have  been  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ.'  He 
says,  therefore,  our  baptism  is  into  Jesus  Christ.  But  Christ 
himself  is  said  to  have  been  baptized  b}'  John,  not  with  that 
baptism  which  is  into  Christ,  but  with  that  which  is  into  the  Law. 
For  so  he  himself  says  to  John  :  '  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now ;  for  so  it 
becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.'  By  which  he  shows,  that 
the  baptism  of  John  was  the  completion  of  the  old  and  not  the 
beginning  of  the  new." 

Origen,  here,  repudiates,  1.  The  idea  that  dipping  into  water 
is  baptism  of  any  kind,  and  especially,  it  is  not  Christian  baptism, 
which  is  '-'•  into  Jesus  Christ,"  nor  is  it  the  baptism  received  by 
Christ  from  John,  which  was  "rnto  the  Law."  2.  He  declares  that 
the  express  statement  of  Scripture  distinguishes  the  baptisms 
of  Christians  and  of  Christ  (symbolly  received  through  John) 
as  radically  as  it  distinguishes  between  grace  and  law.  Origen 
had  no  faith  in  the  modern  doctrine,  "  baptism  is  mode  and 
nothing  but  mode  ;  what  is  baptism  in  one  case  is  baptism  in 
another."  Origen  believed  with  Ambrose  multa  sunt  genera  hap- 
tismatum;  and  that  one  genus,  "  into  Jesus  Christ  "  (z.  e.,  into 
the  gracious  remission  of  sin  through  his  obedience  to  the  law 
and  dying  under  the  penalty  of  the  Law)  was  Christian  baptism; 
and  that  another  genus,  "into  the  Law"  (i.  e.,  into  the  voluntary 
assumption  of  obedience  and  fulfilment  of  all  Law  demands,  in 
his  proper  person  for  the  benefit  of  his  people)  was  Christ's  bap- 
tism from  John.  That  genus  of  baptisms  which  is  into  water, 
and  which  by  the  force  of  its  terms  drowns  human  beings,  was  as 
unknown  to  Origen  among  the  genera  of  religious  baptisms,  as  it 
is  unknown  to  all  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 

Karadvatq — Avadu(Tt<;. 

In  the  quotation  from  Cyril,  and  in  others  about  to  be  made, 
as  well  as  in  Patristic  baptisms  everywhere,  we  meet  with  xara- 


272  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

dou)^  d^ja<iw,y^  xardSufft^,  avadoat^ ;  and  the  question  arises,  What  is 
the  origin  of  these  terms  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  may  be 
of  essential  importance. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (1080)  saj^s:  -/.areSoeTs  rpcrov  ei?  to^  udu)p^  xai 
ndXiv  d'^sdosTs.  "  You  were  covered  over  thrice  into  the  water, 
and,  again,  uncovered." 

DiDYMUS  Alex.,  720:  "The  Eunomians  are  rebaptized,  be- 
cause they  practice  only  one  (xa-dfhfft^)  covering  over,  baptizing 
'  into  the  death  of  the  Lord ; '  the  Phrygians,  also,  are  rebaptized, 
because  they  do  not  baptize  into  three  Persons,  hut  believe  the 
Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  be  one  and  the  same." 

Athanasius  IY,  1080:  "Thou  wast  baptized  ...  by  the  cov- 
ering over  (rfi  xuraSuffsi)  thou  didst  imitate  the  burial  of  the  Lord ; 
but  thou  didst  arise  (dv£(Juq)  thence,  again." 

DiONYSius  Areopag.  I,  404 :  "  The  complete  covering  of  the 
body  by  water  may  be  received  as  a  likeness  of  death  and  burial. 
The  baptized  by  three  coverings  (xaradufreffc)  in  the  water  imitate 
the  divine  death,  and  three  days  and  nights  burial  of  Jesus  the 
giver  of  life." 

These  quotations  illustrate  the  constant  and  abounding  use  of 
xaraduucu^  xaradufff;,  avadww^  d'^aduaiq^  in  Patristic  writings.  This 
usage  as  compared  with  that  of  the  New  Testament  is  remarkable 
in  several  respects :  L  None  of  these  terms  appear  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament ;  2.  Their  usage  by  Patrists  is  limited  to  physical  relations. 
They  introduce  into  and  remove  out  of  water.  And  this  for  the 
declared  purpose  of  symbolizing  burial  and  resurrection.  3.  The 
offices  fulfilled  by  these  terms,  and  by  fia-Kxi^w  and  l3d7:TC(Tfj.a,  are 
markedly  distinct  and  not  interchanged.  KaraSovut  and  xara- 
dnfftc;  are  never^used  to  introduce  "into  Christ,"  "into  his  death," 
"  into  repentance,"  "  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  either  in  the 
New  Testament  or  in  early  Christian  writings  ;  while  j3a7ZTi!^iu  and 
^dTrTiff/j-a  are  invariably  and  exclusively  so  used,  in  both.  On  the 
other  hand,  while  the  former  terras  always  introduce  (ei?  to  u8ujp) 
"  into  the  water,"  as  stated  by  Cyril,  and  for  the  special  purpose 
of  constituting  a  symbol  of  death  and  resurrection  (said  to  enter 
essentially  into  the  rite),  the  latter  terms  are  never  used  in  the 
New  Testament  to  introduce  (el^  to  udtup)  "  into  the  water,"  and 
are  eitlier  never  so  used  in  early  Christian  writings,  or,  if  ever,  it 
is  so  unusual  as  to  manifest  an  exception  to  the  normal  usage  both 
of  the  New  Testament  and  of  Patristic  writings. 

No  thoughtful  person  will  regard  the  phraseology  SaTzriZu)  iv 


Karaduffic; — Avadoffc^;,  273 

vdaTi  ei'c  psravdcav  (otherwise  stated  by  Luke,  udan  iSanrH^u)  £j-  /jtera- 
votav),  as  opposed  to  this  statement.  As  little  opposed  to  it  is  the 
language  of  Mark,  ^^dsv  and  NaZapir  xai  i^a-TiaOri  scq  rjv  ' lopddvqv  ; 
(1.)  Because  e^?  rov  'lopddvyjv  is  not  necessarily^  the  equivalent  of 
e;'?  TO  udoip ;  (2.)  Because  ftanriZco  never  appears  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament with  £iq  TO  udwp,  and  therefore  the  authority  is  wanting  to 
justify  changing  a  phrase  which  may  express  locality,  into  one 
expressing  only  fluid  element ;  (3.)  The  ground  of  such  interpre- 
tation (so  far  as  relates  to  the  verb),  that  (ianTiZu)  means  to  dip  = 
to  put  into  and  take  out  of,  is  an  error.  Therefore,  the  statement 
may  be  made  without  reserve,  that  in  the  New  Testament  neither 
ftanTcZcu,  nor  iSanTtaTTj'^,  nor  fid-KTCff/jLa  is  ever  used  to  introduce  an 
object  into  water,  or  to  express  the  condition  of  being  in  water. 

Some  phrases  which  appear  in  early  Christian  writings  might 
be,  and  have  been,  supposed  to  have  such  relation  to  water;  but 
a  closer  scrutiny  of  usage  will  pi'eclude  such  conclusion.  An 
illustration  of  the  passages  referred  to  may  be  found  in  the  Apos- 
tolical Canon  XLIX,  "  If  any  bishop  or  presbyter  should  not 
celebrate  (Tpca  fianTi<yiJ.aTa  pcdq  [iuy](7scu<;^  dX)^  iv  ftdnTtff/ia  ei^  tov  OdvaTov 
Tou  Iiupiou  didopsvov^  y.aOapsi(TOu>)  three  baptisms  of  one  mystery'', 
but  one  baptism,  given  'into  the  death  of  the  Lord,'  let  him  be 
deposed." 

A  hasty  judgment  might  conclude  that  these  "three  baptisms" 
were  three  dippings  into  water,  and  that  fidizTiffpa  took  the  place 
of  zaTadixTiq -^  but  this  is  not  so;  1.  Because  the  evidence  of  such 
interchange  is  wanting ;  2.  Because  the  passage  expressly  de- 
clares the  one  [-idizTiGpa  (opposed  to  the  three  ^a-KTiapa-a)  to  be  not 
into  water,  but,  as  always,  into  a  wholly  different  element — "  into 
the  DEATH  of  the  Lord  ; "  and  consequently  "  the  three  "  must  be 
supposed  to  be  of  the  same  general  character.  This  is  confirmed 
by  the  subsequent  part  of  the  Canon,  "  for  the  Lord  did  not  say 
'  baptize  into  my  death,'  but  '  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'"  The  "three  baptisms"  are 
clearly  into  the  three,  several,  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  making 
"  the  one  myster}',"  and  not  three  dippings  into  water.  This  is 
further  confirmed  by  the  reason  assigned  for  the  rebaptism  of  the 
Phr3'gians,  namel}^,  "  because  they  did  not  baptize  into  the  three 
Persons,  but  believed  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
to  be  one  and  the  same,"  and  therefore  used  but  one  xaTaduucq. 
The  orthodox  baptism  as  stated  by  Clemens  Rom.  (1045)  leads 
to  the  same  result — "I  am  baptized  into  the  one  Unbegotteu,  the 

18 


274  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

only  true  and  Almighty  God  (l^anriZo/iai  £}q  'iva  ayiwr^rnv)^  and  into 
the  Lord  Jesus  the  Christ,  his  only  begotten  Son  {xa\  elq  rov  A'npcnv 
'IrjtTovv  Tvv  Xpc(TTdv),  and  I  am  baptized  into  the  Hol^''  Ghost,  that 
is  the  Paraclete  (iSanTt^^oim:  xai  etg  TO  UvBU!J.n.  TO  "Aytir^).^^  Such  spe- 
cial evidence  (together  with  that  of  general  usage)  renders  certain, 
that  these  rpcd  /SanritTij-aTa  do  not  express  dippings  into  water  but, 
as  always,  into  an  ideal  element. 

Jerome  (YI,  1139,  Comm.  Jonah  3:3)  introduces  another  of 
these  interpretative  conceits  based  on  the  notion  of  a  three-one 
baptism :  "  When  our  Lord  sends  the  Apostles  that  they  may 
baptize  those  who  were  in  Nineveh,  in  nomine  Patris,  et  Filii,  et 
Spiritus  Sancti,  hoc  est,  itinere  trium  dierum.  And  this  very 
sacrament  of  man's  salvation  (unius  diei  via)  is  a  journey  of  one 
day,  that  is,  it  is  perfected  by  the  confession  of  one  God.  It  is 
to  be  observed,  also,  that  he  does  not  say  (tribus  diebus  et  nocti- 
bus)  three  days  and  nights,  or  one  day  and  night,  but  simply 
(diebus  et  die),  days  and  daj^,  that  he  might  show  that  there  is  no 
darkness  in  the  myster}^  of  the  Trinity  and  the  confession  of  the 
one  God." 

The  Bible  gives  no  more  countenance  to  tlu'ee  dippings,  or  one 
dipping,  into  water  with  the  attendant  feats  of  imagination  which 
picture  a  womb  and  a  birth,  a  death,  a  burial,  and  a  resurrec- 
tion, three  nights  in  the  grave  exhibited  by  three  dippings  under 
the  water,  and  three  days  in  the  grave  by  three  liftings  out  of  the 
water,  than  it  does  to  the  three  daj's' journey  around  Nineveh  to 
denote  the  Trinit}^,  and  the  one  day's  journey  into  Nineveh  to 
denote  the  confession  of  the  one  God. 

When  the  simplicity  of  truth  is  abandoned  we  are  at  once 
environed  by  a  complicity  of  errors. 

4.  In  the  New  Testament  we  never  find  xara^iar^TiZw,  nor  ava- 
fianri'^oj,  xaza^aTZTtaixa,  nor  ava[iaxrt<7iJ.a ;  while  xaraduvw,  avaStjvw, 
xaral^fxTiq,  fha8'')(7c<;,  abound  in  Patristic  baptizings. 

This  marked  diversity  in  the  use  of  terms  narrating  and 
expounding  baptisms  between  the  inspired  writers  and  the  unin- 
spired writers  coming  after  them,  shows,  that  there  was  something 
in  the  baptisms  of  the  latter  which  demanded  the  introduction  of 
a  new  [jliraseology,  as  compared  with  the  baptisms  of  the  former. 
And  this  new  after-element  introduced  into  Christian  baptism 
was  precisely  that  which  this  new  i)hraseology  was  avowedl}^  used 
to  express,  to  wit,  a  burial  and  a  i-esuri'eciion. 

This  conclusion  is  in  harmony  with  the  essential  meaning  of 


IN    CHRIST.  275 

^aTzriZio  (never  taking  out  what  it  puts  in),  and  its  universal  ideal 
relations  as  to  the  receiving  element. 

We  therefore  say,  that  the  interpretation  which  introduces  into 
the  passage  under  consideration  water,  and  a  baptism  into  water 
syml)olizing  death,  and  burial,  and  a  resurrection  (to  say  nothing 
about  "  womb,"  "  birth,"  and  "  mother"),  is  without  the  slightest 
foundation  in  a  just  exegesis. 


"in   CHRIST"   BY   BAPTISM    INTO   CHRIST,  PILLS    WITH    FULNESS 
OP    CHRIST. 

CoLOSSiANS  2  :  9-13. 

"Qti  ev  avT(J  KaroiKel  irav  to  nXrjpu)[ia  ttjq  dedrrjTog  crw/zar^/cwf. 

"Kai  kare  ev  avru  Trerr7\,?jpG)/i.evoi.' .  .  .   . 

'Ev  cj  Knl  nEpiETfiTjdTjTe  nepiTO/uy  axEipoiron'/ru,  kv  r?}  aireKSvaEt  tov  GUfinrog  tuv 
dfiapriuv  rrjg  aapKoc  ev  ry  TVEpirofxy  tov  Xpiarov,  avvTadsvTEQ  avTcI)  ev  tu  (iaTTTia- 
fiaTL. 

'Ev  tj  KOI.  cvvtjyEpQriTE  Sea  Ttjg  ttlgteuq  Trjg  evepyEiag  tov  Qeov  tov  EyEipavTog 

aVTOV  EK  TUV  VEKpUV' . 

.  .  .  GWE^uoLTjaE  (jhv  avTU),  x^ptffd/iEvog  v/ilv  ircivTa  Ta  izapanTufiaTa, 

"  For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily. 

"And  ye  are  made  full  in  him,  who  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and 
power ; 

"  In  whom,  also,  ye  have  been  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made 
without  hands,  by  the  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the 
circumcision  of  Christ,  being  buried  with  him  by  the  baptism  (into  his 
death ) ; 

"  In  whom,  also,  ye  have  been  raised  together  through  faith,  the  working 
of  God  who  raised  him  from  the  dead ; 

"  And  you,  being  dead  in  sins  and  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh,  hath 
he  made  to  live  together  with  him,  having  forgiven  you  all  your  tres- 
passes." 

Translation. 

The  preposition  h  throughout  this  passage  (however  translated, 
in  or  by)  has  a  causative  force,  except  in  the  first  sentence,  where 
the  condition  in  which  Christ  is  by  his  divine  nature  is  made  the 
ground  cause  of  the  condition  of  his  people  who  are  "  in  Him." 

Since  the  condition  of  all  who  are  in  Christ  is  determined  hy 
their  being  "  in  Him,"  and  they  must  be  what  they  are  because 


276  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  his  relation  to  them  and  their  relation  to  him  (under  the  full 
influence  of  which  they  are  thus  represented  as  coming)  some, 
as  Prof.  Ripley,  translate  "6y  whom,"  while  others,  retaining  the 
strong  and  deeply  expressive  form  "in  whom^"  show  its  causative 
power  by  the  translation  of  h  in  other  phrases  dependent  upon 
it.  Thus  Tyndale  translates:  "For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulnes 
of  the  godheed  boddyly,  and  ye  are  full  in  him,  which  is  the  heed 
of  all  rule  and  power,  in  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  cir- 
cumcision made  without  hondes,6?/  putting  of  the  sinfall  boddy  of 
the  fleshe,  thorowe  the  circumcision  that  is  in  Christ,  in  that  ye 
are  buryed  with  him  thoroive  baptism,  in  whom  ye  are  aim  r3'sen 
agayne  thorowe  faith,  that  is  wroght  by  the  operacion  of  god 
which  raysed  hym  from  deeth."  It  would  be  difficult  to  improve 
this  venerable  translation.  Prof.  Ripley,  however,  does  not  ac- 
cept some  of  its  most  important  features.  He  proffers  this  trans- 
lation of  V.  12:  "Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are 
risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead;  that  is  b}'  your  faith  in  the  power  of 
God  who  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  ye  iiave  in  baptism  been 
buried  with,  him,  and  risen  ivith  him.  It  was  in  baptism,  then,  a 
physical  act,  they  had  been  both  buried  and  raised  up  with 
Christ."     Italics  and  capitals  are  as  quoted. 

Prof.  Ripley  objects  to  the  translation  by  Prof.  Stuart,  "  Ye 
are  arisen  with  him  by  faith  wrought  by  the  power  of  God;"  but 
says,  "  That  the  original  is  capable  of  this  version,  no  one  can 
doubt  who  is  acquainted  with  Hebrew  usage,  and  with  that  of 
New  Testament  Greek,  in  regard  to  the  Genitive  case." 

On  this  point  Olshausen  {Comm.  in  loc.)  remarks:  "Faith  is 
here  more  accurately  designated  as  Ttitrnr:  rv^q  hepystaq  mu  deotj. 
All  the  later  interpreters  are  unanimous  on  the  point  that  these 
words  are  to  be  taken  thus:  'Faith  which  the  operation  of  God 
calls  forth,'  and  not  '  Faith  in  the  operation  of  God.'  ....  This 
passage  is  the  most  decided  and  open  of  those  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  which  faith  is  referred  to  the  operation  of  God." 

The  translation  of  Tyndale,  and  Stuart,  and  others,  must  stand 
against  that  of  Prof.  Ripley.  It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted  that  the 
logical  connection  in  the  language  of  the  Afjostle  has  been  inter- 
fered with  by  the  division  of  the  vv.  1 1  and  12,  by  which  that  which 
should  have  closed  v.  II,  is  made  to  begin  v.  12.  The  clauses  which 
follow  iv  o)  y.a\  in  v.  1 1 ,  and  precede  Iv  w  xa\  in  v.  12,  are  epexegeti- 
cal  of  the  statement,  "In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  a  cir- 


IN    CHRIST.  277 

cumcision  made  without  hands,"  the  nature  of  which  circumcision 
is  explained  as  "the  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh;" 
and  the  author  of  the  circumcision  is  explained  by  the  declara- 
tion, that  it  is  "the  circumcision  of  Christ;"  while  the  manner 
of  its  accomplishment  is  explained  by  "  being  buried  with  him  by 
baptism "  (into  his  death).  The  ellipsis  being  supplied  from 
Rom.  6 :  4.  The  sentiment  and  the  construction  show  that  all 
intervening  between  the  iv  m  xai  of  v.  11,  and  the  Iv  m  /.at  of  v.  12, 
belongs  to  the  first  of  these  phrases,  and  consequently  makes  the 
baptism  into  the  death  of  Christ  executive  of  the  circumcision  of 
Christ  which  separates  and  buries  the  body  of  sin,  and  so  regen- 
erates and  purifies,  and  introduces  into  "newness  of  life."  And 
as  h  uj  xai  7TepuTiJ.rj6rjT£  has  no  concern  with  a  rite,  but  begins  and 
ends  with  Christ  and  his  people  in  union  with  him ;  so,  also,  iv 
a>  xai  ffuyrjyipOrjTs  has  as  little  to  do  with  a  rite,  but  declares  a  res- 
urrection in  and  with  Christ,  because  of  union  with  him,  through 
faith  wrought  in  the  soul  by  the  power  of  God.  The  conjunction 
of  reaurreclion  with  the  baptism  is  without  justifying  authority 
either  in  the  proper  interpretation  of  this  passage,  or  in  the  nature 
of  a  baptism.  The  introduction  of  ritual  baptism  into  this  passage 
can  only  be  effected  by  violence,  and  when  effected  it  makes  the 
sentiment  unscriptural  or  an  excrescence  and  a  stumbling-block. 

Interpretation. 

The  parallelism  between  Colos.  2 :  9-13  and  Rom.  6:2-11  is 
obvious,  and  is  universally  admitted.  There  is,  also,  a  parallelism 
of  equivalence  between  phrases  in  these  passages  (diversely  ex- 
pressed), which  claims  attention. 

Among  such  passages  are  the  following:  1.  "Oaot  iiiar,Ti(rO-qtiev  dq 
XpiffTov  "Ir^ffouv^  Rom.  6:3;  and  iirre  iv  auruj  (^=  Xpcaro)^  n£nArjpujiJ.ivoi^ 
Colos.  2:10. 

To  be  "baptized  into  Christ,"  and  "to  be  filled  of  Christ  by 
being  in  him,"  are  expressions  which,  under  diversity  of  form, 
express  the  same  substantial  truth.  There  is  no  more  difference 
between  "  into  Christ "  and  "  in  Christ,"  as  they  appear  in  these 
phrases,  than  there  is  between  into  the  river  and  in  the  river,  as 
they  appear  in  the  statements,  "  the  lead  fell  into  the  river,"  and 
"  the  lead  is  in  the  rivei'."  "  Fell  into  "  expresses,  directly,  the 
passing  into  the  river,  which  necessarily  involves,  as  a  consequence, 
the  subsequent  being  in  the  river.     The  baptism  "  into  Christ "  of 


278  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Romans,  representing  the  soul  as  passing  "into  Christ,"  neces- 
sarily involves  the  being  in  Christ  of  Colossians,  for  in  a  baptism 
there  is  no  withdrawal  of  the  object  baptized.  And  the  soul  which 
is  "  in  Christ "  has,  of  necessity,  previously  passed  into  Christ. 
And  this  passing  into  Christ,  without  withdrawal,  is  designated 
by  the  Scriptures  as  being  baptized  into  him.  Therefore,  when- 
ever the  Scriptures  speak  of  Christians  being  "  in  Christ,"  they 
teach  a  previous  baptism  '''•  into  Christ."  Into  Christ,  and  in 
Christ,  are  parts  of  a  whole  truth  mutuall}^  complementary  of  each 
other.  "Ye  in  Christ  are  made  full,"  is  a  universal  declaration 
applicable  to  all  "in  Christ,"  without  exception.  And  no  one 
who  is  out  of  Christ  is  or  can  be  partakers  of  his  fulness.  The 
statement  in  Romans, "  So  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ"  is  equally  universal,  and  no  one  who  is  not  "baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ "  can  receive  through  him  "  newness  of  life."  If 
dipping  into  water  does  not  give  the  soul  a  place  "  in  Christ," 
dipping  into  water  will  never  "  baptize  the  soul  into  Christ." 
Every  one  who  is  "  in  Christ "  is  so  by  reason  of  having  been 
"  baptized  into  Christ ;"  and  every  one  who  is  "  baptized  into 
Christ"  does, thereby,  become  "in  Christ."  I  am  not  aware  that 
the  friends  of  the  theory  have  pressed  into  service  "  Ye  are  in 
Christ  made  full"  as  proof  of  its  truth;  and  j'et  the  same  im- 
aginative logic  which  finds  water  with  its  death  and  burial,  and 
womb  and  mother,  in  these  passages,  might  readily  do  so.  An 
empty  vessel  put  under  water  is  made  full ;  and  what  better  im- 
agery is  needed  to  teach  that  the  body,  as  an  empty  vessel,  is  put 
under  the  water  to  emblemize  the  soul  empty  of  all  good,  being 
put  "  in  Christ  "  to  be  made  full  of  his  fulness  ? 

But  before  such  a  plea  is  entered  we  make  claim  to  an  equiva- 
lence of  value  between  "baptism,"  and  being  "made  full."  Any 
vessel  which  is  "made  full"  has  its  powers  to  receive  exhausted. 
The  soul  which  is  "  made  full "  of  the  fulness  of  Christ,  can  re- 
ceive no  more.  To  make  full  is  consequently  used  to  express 
subjection  to  controlling  influence ;  as  by  Peter  at  Pentecost,  in- 
terpreting the  charge,  "these  men  are  full  o/ new  wme,"  replies, 
"  these  men  are  not  drunken^  as  ye  suppose."  To  be  full  of  wine, 
is  to  be  under  its  controlling  influence,  to  be  drunken.  But  it 
has  been  proved  b}'^  scores  of  facts,  that  to  be  baptized  into  any- 
thing is  expressive  of  subjection  to  the  controlling  influence  of 
that  thing  whatever  it  may  be.  A  living  man  baptized  into  water 
is  brought  under  its  suffocating  influence,  and  drowned ;  hot  iron 


IN    CHRIST.  279 

baptized  into  cold  water  is  brought  under  its  controlling  influence, 
and  made  cold;  a  medical  prescription  baptized  into  milk  is 
brouglit  under  its  controlling  influence,  and  made  emollient ;  the 
soul  baptized  into  Christ,  is  brought  under  the  controlling  of 
Christ,  and  is  i*edeemed  by  his  blood. 

"  Baptized  into  Christ,"  and  "  ye  are,  in  Christ,  made  full,"  are 
varied  forms  expressive  of  the  same  identical  truth,  namely,  the 
full  participation  in  the  blessings  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour. 

In  like  manner  the  phrases,  "  buried  with  him  (dcd  rod  jSanrcfffjiaToc;) 
by  the  baptism  into  his  death,"  and,  "  buried  with  him  (kv  rw  (io.n- 
riir/iarc)  in  the  baptism  (into  his  death),"  are  diverse,  yet  equiva- 
lent expressions ;  they  both  indicating  a  consequence  of  baptism 
into  Christ's  death.  The  first  states  directly,  that  union  with 
Christ  in  his  death  (expressed  by  baptism  into  his  death)  unites 
with  him  in  his  sepulchre-burial ;  the  second  makes  the  same 
statement,  indirectly,  the  co-burial  with  Christ  being  caused  by 
the  influence  proceeding  from  being  "t>i  the  baptism  into  his 
death." 

So,  also,  the  phrase  "  he  hath  made  you  to  live  together  with 
him,  having  forgiven  you  all  your  trespasses,"  finds  its  equivalent 
in  the  phrase  descriptive  of  John's  preaching — "the  baptism  of 
repentance  into  the  remission  of  sins."  "  Repentance "  is  the 
evidence  of  a  new  life  from  Christ  and  with  it  the  "  baptism  into" 
(  =  the  full)  "  remission  of  all  our  sins." 

This  preaching  was  reiterated  by  Peter,  "  Repent,  and  be  bap- 
tized into  the  remission  of  sins,"  resting  by  faith  "  upon  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ."  It  is  repeated  by  Paul's,  "  Whosoever  is  bap- 
tized into  Christ  is  baptized  into  his  death,"  for  without  the  shed- 
ding of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sins,  and  baptism  into  the 
atoning  death  of  Christ  brings  under  the  full  influence  of  its  sin- 
remitting  power. 

The  parallelism  of  these  passages  of  Paul  is  far  more  profound 
than  that  which  could  be  exhibited  by  sameness  of  words.  Where 
the  sameness  of  words  finds  no  place,  the  sameness  of  truth  may 
stand  out  the  more  strongly  in  the  diversity.  " /n  Christ"  de- 
clares the  baptism  of  the  New  Testament  as  surely  as  '''•Baptized 
INTO  Christ,"  and  perhaps  in  terms  and  under  circumstances 
sufficiently  explicit  to  forbid  "m  Christ"  from  being  trans- 
formed into  in  water. 


280  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


To  Fill 


"Baptize,"  in  Romans,  is  no  more  used  with  a  physical  appli- 
cation, than  is  "  made  full,"  in  Colossians,  used  in  a  physical  ap- 
plication. It  is  also  true,  that  when  baptize  is  used  with  water 
in  the  New  Testament  it  is  no  more  used  as  indicative  that  some 
object  is  to  be  put  into  the  water,  than  Jjll  when  used  with  bread 
(as,  "  wlience  should  we  have  so  much  bread  in  the  wilderness,  as 
to  fill  so  gi'eat  a  multitude")  is  used  to  express  the  physical  fill- 
ing of  the  stomach.  This  bread  was  not  to  be  used  to  fill  the 
stomach  as  a  physical  receptacle,  but  as  a  physical  substance 
possessed  of  a  quality  to  Jill  appetite,  exhaustively  satisfy  hunger. 
So,  "he  would  fain  have  filled  his  belly  ivith  husks^^  does  not 
mean,  that  he  was  fain  to  exhaust  the  containing  capacity  of  the 
"belly"  by  putting  into  it  husks,  but  to  satisfy  appetite  by  eating 
husks.  And  water  witli  baptize  is  not  used  as  a  fluid  capable  of 
receiving  an  object,  but  as  a  fluid  possessed  of  a  quality  capable 
of  symbolizing  purity  as  developed  in  the  phrases  "baptized  into 
repentance,"  "  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  "  baptized 
into  Christ,"  "  baptized  into  his  death." 

The  abounding  use  of  "  fill  "  in  unph^'^sical  relations  truly  illus- 
trates, and  is  fairly  equivalent  in  force  with  that  of  baptize.  In 
illustration  take  the  following  examples :  "  Thou  shalt  be  filled 
with  drunkenness^^  (Ezek.  23  :  33)  as  compared  with  Josephus, 
Jew.  Antiq.,  x,  9,  "  Baptized  by  drunkenness ;"  "  Be  not  drunk 
with  wine,  but  filled  with  the  Spirif^  (Eph.  5:18)  as  compared 
with  the  Classic  Greelc  "  baptized  by  wine,^^  and  the  frequent 
Scripture  phrase  "baptized  by  the  Sjnrit;'^  "Being  filled  loith 
all  unrighteousness  "  (Rom.  1  :  29),  "  Why  hath  Satan  filled  thy 
heart^^  (Acts  5:3)  as  compared  with  the  means  of  recovery,  equal 
in  extent,  depth,  and  power,  "Baptized  into  repentance"  (Matt. 
3:  11);  "To  fill  up  their  .sms,"  as  compared  with  "Baptized 
into  the  remission  of  sins''  (Luke  3  :  3,  Acts  2  :  38)  ;  "I  have 
filled  him  with  the  Spirit  of  God,"  as  compared  with  "  By  one 
Spirit  are  we  all  baptized"  (1  Cor.  12  :  13);  "John  shall  be 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Luke  1  :  15),  "  Elizabeth  was  filled 
icith  the  Holy  Ghost"  (v.  41),  "  Zacharias  was  filled  ivith  the 
Holy  Ghost"  (v.  67),  "Peter  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Acts 
4  :  8),  "  That  thou  mightest  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Gliost "  (Acts 
9:17),  "  Paul  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost "  (Acts  13:9),  as  com- 
pared with,  "  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost "  (Matt. 


JEROME    AND    OTHERS.  281 

3:11),  "Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost '^  (Acts  1  :  5), 
"  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  "  Ye  shall  be 
BAPTIZED  by  the  Holy  Ghost^^  (Acts  11  :  IG);  and,  lastly,  "That 
ye  might  be  filled "  (entering)  "  into  all  the  fulness  of  God  " 
(Ephes.  3:19),  as  compared  with,  "Baptizing  them  into  the 
Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghosts 

In  such  usage,  "  to  fill "  expresses  completeness,  exhaustive 
satisfaction  ;  the  soul  that  enters,  through  the  love  of  Christ, 
"into  all  the  fulness  of  God"  is  exhaustively  satisfied;  and  the 
soul  that  is  baptized  through  the  redeeming  love  of  Christ  into 
the  Triune  God  (made  subject  and  assimilant  to  the  divine  per- 
fections) is  exhaustively  satisfied.  To  fill  and  to  baptize,  while 
diverse,  are  accordant  and  equivalent  in  their  diversit}'  when  used 
in  such  relations. 

Jerome  and  Others. 

Jerome  (Comm.  in  loc.)  connects  what  is  the  beginning  of  v. 
12  in  the  English  Bible  with  the  close  of  v.  11,  as  explanatoiy  of 
the  circumcision  of  Christ.  He  also  refers  the  resurrection  of 
Christians  to  their  relation  with  Christ  (in  quo  et  resurrexistis,  as 
also  in  the  circumcision,  in  quo  et  circumcisi  estis)  and  not  to 
ritual  baptism.  So,  also,  the  Douay  Version,  "  In  whom  also  ye 
are  circumcised."  ..."  In  whom  also  you  are  I'isen  again." 

Ambrose  (III,  498)  translates  iv  [iaTtriaimTi,  '"'"per  baptismum." 

Origen  (Horn.  XIV,  on  Luke)  translated  by  Jerome  (VII,  247) 
teaches  that  the  circumcision  of  Christians  is  "  in  Christ,"  and 
their  resurrection,  also,  is  "  in  Christ,"  and  not  in  ritual  baptism 
by  rising  out  of  the  water.  "  Therefore  his  death,  and  his  resur- 
rection, and  circumcision  were  accomplished  for  us." 

As  Paul  rejects  the  Jewish  circumcision  made  with  hands,  and 
takes  instead  "the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  which  is  without 
hands  (the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  unites  to  him  in  his 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection),  so  Justin  Mai'tyr  rejects  Jewish 
circumcision  (which  he  calls  a  baptism)  on  the  ground  that  he  has 
received  the  nobler  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  his  lan- 
guage (537) :  "  What  value  to  me  is  circumcision  being  approved 
by  the  witness  of  God?"  "  Tiq  hstvou  zoo  iSaTzriffimzix;  XP^^^  "/''V 
Iheuimrt.  iSefSaizziffijAvu)  What  need  has  he  of  that  baptism  who  has 
been  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ? "  Justin  Martyr  was  a  Greek 
of  the  Greeks,  and  when  he  calls  cii'cumcision  a  "  baptism  "  it  is 
settled  that  among  Greeks  baptism  meant  something  else  than  a 
dipping  into  water.     And  when  he  compares  by  contrast  circum- 


282  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

cision  baptism  by  the  exscinding  knife,  witli  the  soul  baptism  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  he  had  another  idea  of  Christ's  baptizing  Iw  the 
Holy  Ghost  than  that  of  his  "dipping  in  tlie  Holy  Ghost." 

Cyril  (513)  says  :  "  By  the  likeness  of  the  faith  of  Abraham  we 
come  into  adoption.  And  then,  after  faith,  in  like  manner  with 
him  we  receive  the  spiritual  seal,  l)eing  circumcised  b}'  the  Holy 
Ghost  {Sta  TOO  hiurpoo)  through  the  washing,  not  as  to  the  foreskin 
of  the  body  but  of  the  heart,  as  Jeremiah  says,  '  Circumcise  to  the 
Lord  the  foreskin  of  your  heart ; '  and  according  to  the  Apostle, '  By 
the  circumcision  of  Christ,  being  buried  with  him  bj'  baptism.'" 

Cyril,  in  common  with  Origen  and  Jerome,  identifies  the  burial 
with  Christ  through  baptism  into  his  death,  with  the  circumcision 
of  Christ;  and  like  them  grounds  the  resurrection  in  union  with 
Christ. 

A  just  interpretation  of  this  passage  furnishes  no  support  for 
a  ritual  baptism  as  giving  origin  to  the  form  of  its  language  or 
sentiment.  On  the  contrary  a  strict  criticism  makes  this  passage 
with  its  parallel  in  Romans  mutually  elucidatory  and  confirmatory 
of  each  other,  as  teaching  a  most  intimate  union  between  Christ 
and  his  people  effected  by  Divine  power,  and  making  them  fully 
participant  of  redemption  from  sin  and  death  through  liis  death, 
and  of  life  and  immortality  through  his  resurrection.  Especially 
is  there  no  authority  for  attaching  the  notion  of  a  resurrection  . 
from  this  passage  to  ritual  baptism.  The  crucifixion,  the  burial, 
and  the  resurrection  are  all  to  be  found  "in  Christ."  As  addi- 
tional evidence  for  this  truth,  so  far  as  the  resurrection  is  con- 
cerned, see  3:1,"  If  ye  be  risen  together  with  Christ"  aovrffifiQ-rfs 
tG)  XfnaTu}  (Cod.  Sin.  iv  Xptazw)^  which  proves  that  the  iv  cj  of  v.  12 
belongs  to  Christ,  as  Tyndale  has  translated  it,  and  not  to  bap- 
tism as  in  the  common  version. 


BAPTISM   INTO   CHRIST    MAKES    CHRISTLIKE. 
Galatians  3  :  2G,  27. 
TiavTeg  yap  vloi  Qeov  hart  6ia  tt/q  niareug  h  Xpiaroi  'Ir/cjov' 
"Oaoc  yap  elg  Xpiarbv  kfia-rrTladr/TE,  Xpcarov  kveSvaaade. 
"  For  yo  are  all  the  children  of  GotI  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus ; 
"For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ." 

Not  Ritual  Bajytism. 

In  support  of  the  position  that  this  baptism  is  ritual  I  know  of 
nothing  which  can  be  adduced  except  the  mere  presence  of  the 


THIS    IS    REAL    BAPTISM.  283 

word  "  baptize."  But  such  a  position  on  such  a  basis  is  antago- 
nized and  nullified  by  the  fact,  that  this  word  is  used  to  express 
a  real  baptism  b}'^  the  Holy  Spirit  as  well  as  a  ritual  baptism  by 
water.  That  the  latter  is  here  referred  to,  therefore,  must  be 
proved  and  not  be  assumed.  The  attempt  at  proof  must  begin 
with  the  supply  of  an  ellipsis,  namely,  "As  many  as  have  been 
baptized  into  water  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ;"  which  at- 
tempt is  confronted  with  these  difficulties :  1.  Such  phraseology 
condemns  itself;  2.  "Baptized  into  water"  destroys  life;  3.  To 
change  "  baptized  "  into  dipped  (to  save  life)  is  to  substitute  an- 
other word,  of  essentially  diverse  meaning,  for  the  word  of  inspi- 
ration ;  4.  There  is  no  such  language  in  Scripture  as  "  baptized 
INTO  water,''''  and  therefore  such  language  cannot  be  introduced  by 
ellipsis  in  the  interpretation  of  any  passage  of  Scripture.  It  is 
neither  answer  nor  contradiction  to  this  to  say,  /Sr/rnCc  h  udarc 
occurs  in  Scripture ;  because  the  relation  between  h  udart  and 
jSanTc^u)  (as  thus  occurring)  is  not  such  as  is  sought  to  be  intro- 
duced into  the  passage  under  consideration  ;  namely,  as  comple- 
mentary of  j3a7tTiZio  and  as  the  receptive  element  into  which  the 
baptized  object  passes ;  but  expresses  the  s3'^mbol,  ritual  agency 
in  the  baptism  (el^  /izravoiw^)  "  into  repentance,"  as  is  shown  in 
Johannic  Baptism ;  5.  If  this  ellipsis  should  be  insisted  upon  (as 
that  without  which  all  is  lost)  this  new  difficulty  emerges,  namely, 
a  baptism  into  water  has  no  power  to  bring  '•''into  Christ  ;  "  and 
if  this  is  sought  to  be  met  by  another  ellipsis,  "  As  many  as  have 
been  baptized  into  water  have  made  a  profession  of  entering  into 
Christ,"  we  ask:  And  what  about  "putting  on  Christ"?  And, 
again,  an  ellipsis  is  proffered,  "put  on  Christ  hyprofession.''^  Such 
helps,  to  meet  the  difficulties  arising  out  of  a  primary  error,  re- 
minds of  the  cycle  and  epicycle  introduced  to  escape  the  difficulties 
induced  by  the  error  which  made  the  earth  the  centre  of  the  solar 
system.  The  cycle  and  the  epicycle  failed  to  change  error  into 
truth,  and  this  ellipsis  and  epiellipsis  equally  fails  to  give  truth  to 
an  erroneous  interpretation. 

This  is  Real  Baptism. 

That  this  baptism  spoken  of  by  Paul  is  a  real  baptism  in  which 
the  condition  of  the  soul  is  thoroughly  changed  in  its  relations  to 
Christ  by  Divine  power  is  fully  established  :  1.  By  the  express 
statement  of  the  words  of  inspiration.     The  words  "  baptized 


284  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

into  Christ''  do  mean,  and  under  the  true  meaning  oi ^anri^w  and 
the  usage  without  exception  of  such  phrase,  can  mean  nothing 
else  than,  thorough  subjection  to  the  controlling  influence  of 
Christ  as  distinctivel^y  distinguished  from  that  of  all  other  beings  ; 

2.  That  this  is  the  true  interpretation  of  this  phrase,  is  made,  if 
possible,  more  certain  b3'  the  special  interpretation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  declaring,  that  "baptized  into  Christ"  finds  its  equiva- 
lent in  "  put  on  Christ."  No  one  ever  yet  questioned,  that  the 
essential  meaning  of  "  putting  on  any  one  "  W^as  the  assumption 
in  fact  of  the  character  of  such  one,  whatever  it  might  be.  The 
only  issue  then,  is  this  :  Shall  we  accept  this  double  statement  of 
truth  by  the  Holy  Spirit  at  its  essential  value,  or  shall  we  evis- 
cerate it  of  its  divine   life  and   substitute  for  it  "profession?" 

3.  The  agency  effecting  this  baptism  is  not  stated  in  direct  con- 
nection with  the  baptism,  but  is  stated  in  the  context,  and  neces- 
sitates a  I'eal  and  not  a  ritual  baptism.  This  entire  chapter  pre- 
sents "faith"  as  the  bond  of  union  between  the  soul  and  Christ; 
V.  1  exhibits  "Christ  crucified ;"  v.  2,  "received  ye  the  Spirit  by 
the  works  of  the  law  or  by  the  hearing  o^  faith  V  v.  3,  "having 
begun  in  the  Spirit  are  ye  now  made  perfect  by  the  flesh  ?"  v.  5, 
"he  that  ministereth  to  you  the  Spirit  doeth  he  it  by  the  law  or 
hy  faith  V  v.  1,  "  they  which  are  of  faith  are  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham ;"  V.  8,  "  and  the  Scripture  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify 
the  heathen  through  faith  preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abra- 
ham, saying,  '  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed,'  so  then  they 
which  be  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham  ;"  v.  11,  "  the 
just  shall  live  hy  faith;''''  v.  13,  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law.  .  .  .  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a 
tree  ;  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles 
through  Jesus  Christ;  that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit  through  faith ;"  v.  22,  "  that  the  promise  by  faith  o/"  Jesus 
Christ  might  be  given  to  them  that  believe ;"  v.  26,  "  Ye  are  all 
the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus  ;"  v.  27,  "  For  as 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ;"  v.  28,  "Ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus;"  v.  29,  "And 
if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed  and  heirs  accord- 
ing to  the  promise." 

If  anytliing  can  be  made  certain  it  is  that  the  agencies  operative 
throughout  this  chapter  are  "  the  Spirit  "  and  "  faith,"  which  is 
itself  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  This  accords  with  the  general  teach- 
ing of  Scripture,  that  the  soul  is  baptized  and  made  participant 


PUT    ON    CHRIST.  285 

in  the  blessings  of  Christ,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
with  the  special  teaching  of  Coloss.  2  :  12,  "Buried  with  Christ 
b}'^  baptism  into  his  death,  in  whom  ye  are  risen  together  through 
FAITH  wrought  by  God  ;"  4.  The  entire  complexion  of  the  Apostles' 
argument  imperativelj'  demands  a  real  baptism  by  the  Spirit  into 
Christ,  thus  establishing  the  soul  (v.  28)  "in  Christ,"  as  in 
Colossians,  "  in  whom  ye  are  circumcised  ;"  "  in  whom  ye  are 
risen  together." 

Tllustration. 

The  figure  by  which  baptism  into  Christ  is  illustrated,  that  of 
putting  on  a  garment  as  an  exhibition  of  character,  is  common  in 
Scripture.  It  appears  in  Isaiah  61  :  10,  "I  will  greatly  rejoice  in 
the  Lord,  my  soul  shall  be  glad  in  my  God ;  for  he  hath  clothed 
me  with  the  garments  of  salvation,  he  hath  covered  we  with  the 
robe  of  righteousness,  as  a  bridegroom  decketh  himself  with 
ornaments,  and  as  a  bride  adorneth  herself  with  her  jewels." 
Isaiah  59  :  17,  "  He  put  on  the  garments  of  vengeance  for  cloth- 
ing, and  was  clad  with  zeal  as  a  cloak." 

Also,  in  Rom.  13  :  12,  14,  "  Let  us  put  off  the  works  of  dark- 
ness and  put  on  ^/je  armor  of  light.  .  .  .  Bnt put  yeonthe  Lord 
Jesus  Christ;"  1  Cor.  15  :  54,  "This  corruptible  mn&t put  on  in- 
corruption,  and  this  mortal  must  j)^i  on  immortality.  So  when 
this  corruptible  shall  have  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal 
shall  have  put  on  immortality,  then  Death  shall  be  swallowed  up 
(eic)  INTO  VICTORY  ;"  2  Cor.  5  :  4,  "Not  for  that  we  would  be  un- 
clothed {t/.duaaoOai)  but  clothed  upon  (iTrevduffarrOac)^  that  mortality 
might  be  swallowed  up  by  life  ;"  Coloss.  3  :  12,  "  Put  on  as  the 
elect  of  God,  holy  and  beloved,  bowels  of  mercies^  kindiiess^ 
humbleness  of  mind,  meekness,  long-suffering,  .  .  .  and  upon  all 
these,  charity,  which  is  the  bond  of  perfectness." 

Two  things  are  made  certain  by  these  passages:  1.  "  Put  on," 
as  a  figure  e  vestiaria,  is  never  used  in  Scripture  to  express  what 
is  fictitious,  unreal,  or  a  mere  profession,  but  that  which  is  true 
and  real;  2.  As  the  phrases,  "put  on  the  armor  of  light,"  "put 
on  incorruption,"  "  put  on  immortality,"  "  put  on  charity,"  ex- 
press a  reality,  so  "  put  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  "  (Rom.  13  :  14), 
and  "put  on  Christ"  (Gal.  3  :  27),  express  a  reality.  And  inas- 
much as  "  baptized  into  Christ  "  is  declared,  on  divine  authority, 
to  be  the  equivalent  of "  put  on  Christ,"  then  baptized  "  into 
Christ"  must  express  a  reality  and  not  a  shadow. 


286  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

These  passages  have  other  instructive  bearings  on  our  Inquiry. 
No  one  doubts  that  the  phrase,  "Death  is  swallowed  up  into  Yie- 
tory"  (y.o.TaTt60f^  u  Odvaro^  eU  v'txo':)  expresses  the  complete  influence 
of  Victory  over  Death  ;  how,  then,  can  the  phrase  "  As  many  as 
have  been  baptized  into  Christ,"  express  less,  or  anything  else, 
than  the  full  influence  of  Christ  over  all  so  baptized  ?  And  as 
the  phrase  "  swallowed  up  by  life"  {y.a-anuOfi  rd  Ov-qrov  utzo  r-T^q  C<«ii?), 
expresses  "life"  to  be  the  agency  hy  which  the  swallowing  up 
and  the  consequent  influence  is  effected,  so,  in  the  phrase  of 
Josephus,  "  baptized  b}'  drunkenness,"  drunkenness  expresses 
the  agency  by  which  the  baptism  is  etTected  and  by  its  nature  in. 
volves  the  nature  of  the  baptism,  to  wit  {ei<;  a'^aKT^-qfrtw)  "  into 
insensibility,"  and  so  also,  in  the  frequent  Scripture  phrase  "  bap- 
tism of  repentance,"  repentance  expresses  the  agency  by  which  the 
baptism  is  effected,  and  determines  the  character  of  the  baptism, 
to  wit  (£:?  dfsffiv  dfiapTtcuv)  "into  the  remission  of  sins."  And 
farther,  as  the  phrase  "swallowed  up  with  overmuch  sorrow" 
(r^  mptnijoripa  Xutttj  xaranoOfj)  2  Cor.  2  :  7,  expresses  "  sorrow  "  to 
be  the  agency  (by  the  Dative),  so  Luke  3  :  16  expresses,  by  pre- 
cisely the  same  grammatical  form  (udan  ftanrt'Coj),  water  to  be  the 
symbol  agenc}'  by  which  the  baptism  is  effected  (eiq  /xezdvoiav) 
"  into  repentance  "  =  "  into  the  remission  of  sins."  As  "  sorrow  " 
is  the  agency  by  which  the  swallowing  up  is  accomplished  and 
not  the  element  into  which  the  object  swallowed  up  passes,  so, 
"  water  "  is  the  agency  by  which  the  baptism  is  symbolly  effected 
and  not  the  element  into  which  the  baptized  object  passes.  From 
all  which  we  draw  this  conclusion :  From  the  essential  meaning 
of  i^a-Kzi'^io  the  Scriptures  could  not,  as  in  fact  they  do  not,  teach 
a  baptism  into  water,  while  for  the  same  reason  they  could,  and 
in  fact  do,  teach  a  baptism  "  into  Christ,"  "  into  repentance," 
"  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  and  other  like,  profound,  and  abid- 
ing baptisms. 

Interpreters. 

The  views  of  Interpreters,  both  ancient  and  modern,  accord 
very  generally  in  the  belief,  that  the  piirases  "  baptized  into 
Christ"  and  "  put  on  Christ"  express  a  real  and  profound  truth, 
and  not  one  of  sfemblance  and  profession. 

RosENMULLER,  on  Rom.  13:14,  '■'-Pat  on  Chrid.  Imitamini 
Christum,  similes  illi  fieri  studete.  Sic  apud  Dionys.  llalic.  Ant. 
L.,  XI.      Appius  et  reliqui  decemviri  vocantur  obxln  iiszpid'^ovTsq 


INTO    CHRIST.  287 

dUd  rov  Tapxuvtnv  hsivov  i:vdu6;j.£vot  non  amplius  modum  servantes, 
see]  Tarquinium  ilium  indnentes,  i.  e.,  imitantes." 

And  again,  he  says  :  "  To  put  on,  induere,  quum  de  A'irtutibus 
usnrpatur,  signiScat,  iis  summo  studio  deditura  esse,  eas  diligen- 
tissime  sectari.  Tbemistius,  Orat.  24,  liortator.  ad  pliilos.,  irrEc- 
dyjTzep  dpsTYjv  dvr]  luariwv  ■^tKpierrro  quoniam  virtute  loco  vestium  in- 
dutus  erat.  Athenteus  L.  XI 11.  C.  2,  j3ouX6;j.evoc  hdusadai  durr^v 
durdxpscav  quum  fi'ugalitatem  illam  induere  velitis." 

These  classical  quotations  show,  that  the  use  of  this  figure  out 
of  the  Scriptures,  as  well  as  in  them,  was  a  strong  expression 
covering  a  reality. 

Olshausen,  Rom.  13:  14,  "  To  put  on  Christ.  The  figure  is 
derived  from  a  robe  of  righteousness.  Profane  writers  also  use 
to  put  0^' and  to  put  on  in  like  manner,  in  the  sense  of  fashioning 
one^s  self  unlike  or  like  a  person.'"  On  Galat.  3  :  26,  27  :  '■'■Bap- 
tism into  Christ  is  here  conceived  of  in  its  profoundest  idea. 
The  putting  on  Christ  is  a  description  of  what  happens  in  the 
new  birth.  This  expression  denotes  the  most  intimate  appropria- 
tion of  Christ.  To  put  on  the  new  man  =  being  renewed.  To 
put  on  immoi'tality  denotes  the  change  of  the  mortal  body  into 
the  immortal  nature  of  corporeity.  But  with  whomsoever  Christ 
joins  himself,  to  him  he,  the  Son  of  God,  also  communicates  the 
nature  of  a  child  of  God." 

Bloomfield,  Rom.  13:14:  ^^  Put  on  Christ,  i.e.,  Take  upon 
you  his  dispositions,  follow  his  example.  A  metaphor  e  re  ves- 
tiarid,  and  found  also  in  the  classical  writers.  So  Lucian,  Gall. 
19,  dn(>du(7dij.tvo(;  8s  rd>  UvOayopav  riva  perrjiKptaffU}  ;j.st  adroy.  Bengel, 
Galat.  3 :  2*7  :  Ye  have  put  on  Christ.  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God, 
and  5'e  are  in  Him,  the  sons  of  God.  Tho.  Gataker  says,  '  A 
Christian  is  one  who  has  put  on  Christ.^  " 

Ellicott,  Galat.  3:27:  "  Into  Christ,  not  in  Christo,  but  in 
Christum  ;  Beza,  sed  ut  Christo  addicti  essetis.  The  meaning  of 
ei:<r  with  /Sarrj'^w  appears  twofold  ;  (a)  unto,  object,  purpose ;  (b) 
into,  union  and  communion  with:  here  and  Rom.  6  :  3,  the  union 
is  of  the  most  complete  and  mj'stical  nature.  Uanr.  e\q  rd  Svopa  is 
not  identical  in  meaning  with  /?«7rr.  tv  tm  dvoimrt,  but  ever  implies  a 
spiritual  and  mystical  union  with  him  in  whose  name  the  sacra- 
ment was  administered.  The  discussion  by  Fritsche,  Rom.  6  :  3, 
is  by  no  means  satisfactory,  as  he  regards  tk  as  only  implying 
ethical  direction,  instead  of  that  mystical  incorporation  which  the 
passage  seems  certainly  to  convey." 


288  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

"  To  put  on  Ch7'isL  There  appears  no  allusion  to  Heathen, 
Jewish,  or  Christian  customs.  Wetstein,  Rom.  13  :  14,  shows  to 
put  on  any  one,  is  a  strong  expression  denoting  the  complete  as- 
sumption of  the  nature,  etc.,  of  another." 

The  evidence  is  conclusive  that  /Sa-r.  £i<;  always  expresses  the 
same  radical  idea ;  and  jSanr.  e]<;  to  6'M);j.a,  and  /Sa-r.  iv  toj  ovofmrc 
never  come  in  competition,  in  the  same  line  of  thought. 

Alpord  says  :  "As  many  of  you  as  were  'baptized  into  Christ,' 
put  on  Christ  at  that  time.  The  aorists  make  the  acts  identical." 
This  is  true  of  baptism  into  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  it  is  not 
true  of  ritual  baptism  into  Christ. 

Patristic. 

Tertullian,  III,  1131,  "He  who  was  sanctified  by  baptism,  laj'- 
ing  aside  his  sins,  and  spiritually  renewed,  was  made  fit  to  receive 
the  Hol}^  Spirit,  since  the  Apostle  says :  '  As  many  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ,  (Gal.  3  :  27).  .  .  .  Christ 
cannot  be  put  on  without  the  Spirit,  nor  can  the  Spirit  be  sepa- 
rated from  Christ.  Mere  water,  without  the  Holy  Spirit,  can 
neither  purge  away  sins  nor  sanctify  the  man.  Wherefore  it 
must  be  admitted,  either  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  there  where  bap- 
tism is,  or  that  baptism  is  not  where  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not ;  for 
baptism  cannot  be  without  the  Holy  Spirit." 

This  extract  proves,  1.  Tertullian  did  not  believe  that  "  putting 
on  Christ"  was  a  mere  profession  of  Christ,  but  a  regeneration 
by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  2.  Tertullian  did  not  believe  that  Christian 
baptism  was  a  dipping  into  water.  This  latter  point  is  farther 
shown  by  the  statement  (1166),  "If  the  Apostle  does  not  lie, 
saying:  Quotquot  in  Christo  tincti  estis,  Christum  induistis 
(Gal.  3:27)  undoubtedly  whosoever  is  there  baptized  puts  on 
Christ;  but  if  he  puts  on  Christ,  he  can,  also,  receive  the  Holy 
Spirit  who  is  sent  by  Christ." 

And  in  II,  938,  "  Bat  Jesus,  the  great  High  Priest  of  the 
Father,  clothing  us  with  himself  (for  (Gal.  3 :  27)  qui  in  Christo 
tinguuntur,  Christum  induerunt)  has  made  us  priests  unto  his 
Father."  Here  "  in  Christo  "  is  represented  as  a  (quasi)  dye  in 
which  wimtsoever  is  i)laced  becomes  like  the  dye  in  color,  so,  who- 
soever is  placed  "in  Christ,"  becomes  like  Christ,  and  as  he  is  the 
great  High  Priest,  they  who  are  "  in  Christ  "  assume  a  priestly 
character  like  him.     Also,  991,  "  Itaque,  si  exiude  quo  statum 


INTO    CHRIST.  289 

vertit,  et  in  Christum  tincta,  induit  Christum  (Gal.  3  :  21),  There- 
fore, if  thence  by  which  (baptism)  he  has  changed  his  condition, 
and  baptized  (tincta)  into  Christ,  has  put  on  Christ."  Such  and 
suchlilie  passages  preclude  au}^  other  interpretation  except  that 
which  is  based  in  the  secondary  meaning  of  tingo,  and  these 
bring  it  into  intimate  relation  with  /?a7rr:'C«>.  It  was  the  common 
opinion  of  these  writers  that  the  water  of  baptism  was  not 
"  aqua  sola^''^  mere  water,  but  a  new  "  power,"  or  "  qualitj'^," 
analogous  to  that  of  a  dye,  or  medicated  element,  was  imparted 
to  it  adapting  to  accomplish  those  transforming  results  ascribed 
to  it. 

This  idea  is  referred  to  by  Rigaltius  in  a  note  on  the  passage 
as  explanatory  of  the  language  of  TertuUian.  He  says :  "  Nor 
could  sins  be  washed  away  before  Christ  had  come ;  because  the 
waters  themselves  had  not  yet  been  washed  or  medicated  by  the 
baptism  of  Christ  (quia  scilicet  nee  ipsae  aquae  adhuc  laverant, 
nondum  baptismo  Christi  medicatae  fuerant) ;  therefore  they  were 
not  yet  fit  to  wash  away  that  kind  of  uncleanness." 

It  is  in  this  idea  of  the  "  medication  "  of  the  waters  of  baptism 
that  the  usage  of  tingo  by  TertuUian  finds  its  facile  explanation, 
as  well  as  its  perfect  justification.  Neither  he  nor  any  other  early 
Christian  writer  shows  the  remotest  sympathy  with  the  modern 
error,  that  Christian  baptism  is  a  dipping  into  water.  How  they 
used  the  water  has  no  more  concern  with  the  baptism  effected, 
than  how  they  used  the  oil  or  the  spittle. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  1078  :  "  Immediately  upon  entering  (dze- 
8u£(j0£)  you  put  off  the  tunic ;  wliich  was  an  image  of  despoiling 
the  old  man  with  his  deeds.  Having  put  it  off,  you  were  naked, 
in  this,  also,  imitating  the  Christ,  naked  on  the  cross.  .  .  .  Oh 
wonderful  thing!  you  were  naked  before  the  eyes' of  all  and  not 
ashamed."  1088  :  "  Having  been  baptized  into  Christ,  and  having 
put  on  Christ,  ye  became  of  like  form  with  the  Son  of  God.  There- 
fore having  became  partakers  of  the  Christ  (Anointed)  you  are 
well  called  Christoi  (anointed  ones),  and  concerning  you  God 
says,  '  Touch  not  my  {'/^ptarwv)  anointed  ones.'  Ye  have  become 
Christoi,  having  received  the  antitype  "  (the  oil  in  baptism)  "  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  And  everything  has  been  done  to  you  typically, 
because^  3'ou  are  types  of  Christ.  And  he,  indeed  (Xouadpsvo^) 
having  washed  in  the  river  Jordan,  communicated  to  its  waters 
the  fragrance  of  his  divinity." 

This  exti-act  from  Cyril  shows  that  he  believed  Christian  bap- 

19 


290  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

tism  to  be  "into  Christ;''^  to  be  productive  of  a  real  and  power- 
ful effect ;  that  the  effect  of  baptism  "  into  Christ  "  was  to  make 
Ohristoi,  just  as  the  effect  of  putting  fleeces  of  wool  into  2i  purple 
dye^  is  to  vavilie  purple  jieeces  ;  and  that  the  water  of  baptism  was 
capable  of  all  this,  not  b}'  its  power  as  aqua  sola,  but  as  sharing 
in  that  divine  power  communicated  to  all  such  water,  in  common 
with  those  of  the  Jordan. 

Basil  M.  Ill,  1564 :  "  Being  born  from  above  may  be  deemed 
worth}'  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God,  and  of  that  great  gift  announced  b}'  the  Apostle,  saying, 
'As  many  as  liave  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ.' 
It  is  a  necessary  consequence  that  one  who  is  born  should  be 
(^iv(V)(Ta(Tflai)  clothed.  Then  {l\'(%(7dfj.s:\'(i<;)  having  been  clothed  upon 
as  it  were  by  the  Son  of  God,  we  become  worthy  of  the  perfect 
rank,  and  are  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who,  according  to  the  testimony  of  John,  gave 
us  power  to  become  the  Sons  of  God"  (John  1  :  12). 

WiCKHAM  (Doctrine  of  Baptism,  London),  p.  438,  quotes  and 
translates  Jerome  thus  :  "  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  not  so 
much  cleansed  by  the  baptism  as  by  his  baptism  cleansed  all 
waters.  .  .  .  After  he  was  baptized,  and  by  his  baptism  had  sanc- 
tified the  waters  of  Jordan.  .  .  .  The  Apostle  shows  how  we  are 
born  the  sons  of  God  by  the  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  say- 
ing :  '  For  as  many  of  you  as  are  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put 
on  Christ.'  Now  that  Christ  is  a  thing  to  be  put  on,  is  proved 
not  onl}'  from  the  present  passage,  but  also  from  another,  the 
same  Paul  exhorting  us,  '  Put  j-e  on  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  .  .  . 
When  a  man  has  once  put  on  Christ,  and  being  passed  into  the 
flame,  has  been  made  white  with  the  whiteness  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
it  is  not  perceived  whether  lie  is  gold  or  silver.  As  long  as  the 
heat  thus  occupies  the  mass,  there  is  one  Qolor  of  fire,  and  every 
diversity  of  kind,  of  condition,  and  of  bodies,  is  taken  away  by 
a  clothing  of  that  sort.  For  he  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek.  .  .  . 
Since  all  diversity  is  taken  away  b}^  the  baptism  of  Christ  and  by 
being  clothed  with  him,  we  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus." 

These  views  of  Jerome  as  to  the  reality  and  power  of  "  baptism 
into  Christ,"  and  "  putting  on  Christ,"  accord  with  those  of  others 
quoted.  This  baptism  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost  into  CnRisT>and  not 
into  WATER,  bringing  all  who  partake  of  it  under  the  full  influence 
of  Christ  as  Lord  and  Saviour. 


"in    CHRIST."  291 


Dr.  Pusey. 

Dr.  Pusey  accejots  these  Patristic  views  not  merely  as  to  results, 
but,  also,  as  to  the  causes  of  those  results.  Quoting  (p.  93) 
Chrysostom  X,  104,  "  As  many  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ, 
have  put  on  Christ:  'And  wh}'  saith  he  not.  As  many  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ  have  been  born  of  God?  for  so  had  he 
proved  more  directly  that  they  were  sons.  He  saith  this  in  a  way 
much  more  awfully  great.  For  since  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God, 
and  thou  hast  put  him  on,  having  the  Son  in  thyself,  and  being 
transformed  into  his  likeness,  thou  hast  been  brought  into  one 
kindred  and  one  species  with  him ; '  he  remarks :  '  St.  Paul 
speaks  then  not  of  duties,  but  of  privileges,  inestimable,  incon- 
ceivable, which  no  thought  can  reach  unto — our  union  with  God 
in  Christ,  wherein  we  were  joined  in  Holy  Baptism,'  '  Ye  are  all 
one  in  Christ  Jesus,'  brings  out  the  more  clearly  how  the  being 
'clothed  with  Clirist,'  is  the  same  as  being  '•in  Christ  Jesus  ; '  are 
in  Him,  by  being  clothed  upon  by  Him  ;  .  .  .  for,  seeing  we  are 
i7i  Him,  then  the  putting  on  Christ  is  a  spiritual  realit}',  the  being 
encompassed,  surrounded,  invested  with  him,  as  a  body  is  with  a 
garment.  .  .  .  So,  we  see  the  force  of  those  words  by  which  St. 
Paul  so  frequently  describes  our  Christian  privileges,  the  being 
Hn  Christ.'  " 

The  radical  error  in  this  interpretation  is  the  introduction  into 
it  of  a  ritual  baptism,  which  has  no  place  in  the  mind  or  language 
of  Paul.  And  while  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  recognized 
and  declared  to  be  a  sine  qua  non  in  order  to  the  spiritual  result, 
still,  the  incorporation  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  the 
use  of  the  ritual  water,  is  a  pure  error  without  support  here  or 
elsewhere  in  Scripture. 

"7w  Christ.'' 

Attention  has  been  already  called  to  (what  Dr.  Pusey  sa^^s  is 
of  so  frequent  occurrence  in  Scripture)  "tn  Christ,"  as  having 
the  most  intimate  relation  to  "  baptized  into  Christ."  The  phrase 
"in  Christ"  is  universally  regarded  as  most  real,  and  of  the 
deepest  spiritual  significance.  It  occurs  in  the  following  pas- 
sages:  Rom.  6:11,  8  :  1,  12  :  5,  16  :  7  ;  1  Cor.  1:2,  30,  3:1,  4:15, 
15  :  18,  22  ;  2  Cor.  5:17,  12:2;  Gal.  1  :  22,  2  :  4,  17,  5  :  6,  6  :  15  ; 
Eph.  1:1,  8-13,20,2:5,10,13;   Phil.  1:1,  4:13,  19;  Colos.  1  :  2, 


292  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

28  ;    1  Thess.  2  :  14,  4  :  16  ;    2  Tim.  3:12;    1  Peter  5  :  10,  14  ;  1 
John  5  :  20. 

According  to  the  force  of  (ianriZm^  as  shown  by  this  Inquiry,  all 
who  are  "baptized  into  Christ,"  do,  thenceforth,  remain  "zn 
Christ,"  since  this  word  does  not  take  out  what  it  puts  in,  but 
leaves  its  object  within  what  it  is  placed.  And  as  bearing  on  this 
point  it  is  deeply  interesting  and  no  less  instructive,  that  the 
Scriptures  do  so  constantly  represent  all  Christians  without  ex- 
ception, both  as  "baptized  into  Christ,''^  and  as  "in  ChrisV^ 
This  is  precisely  what  should  be  upon  our  interpretation  both  of 
the  word  and  of  the  phrase ;  and  it  is  precisely  what  should  not 
be  according  to  the  word  and  the  phrase  as  interpreted  by  the 
theory  which  makes  Christian  baptism  to  be  "  a  dipping  into 

WATER." 

Dr.  Carson. 

Dr.  Carson  (p.  213)  says  :  "  The  Apostle  does  not  state  the  im- 
port of  an  ordinance  of  God  in  Gal.  3:27;  he  does  not  allege  that 
their  submission  to  baptism  was  an  evidence  of  putting  on  Christ, 
for  it  is  not  such  ;  but  it  is  a  figure  of  putting  on  Christ.  Some 
of  them  might  not  turn  out  to  be  real  believers,  but  in  their 
baptism  they  were  taken  for  such." 

This  exposition  is  purely  contradictory  to  the  inspired  text. 
Dr.  Carson  says,  "  The  Apostle  does  not  state  the  import  of  an 
ordinance  of  God."  The  Apostle  does  declare  the  "import"  of 
that  of  which  he  speaks,  namel}^,  "Baptism  into  Christ,"  and 
declares  that  it  clothes  with  Christy  and  if  this  is  not  the  "  import  " 
of  an  "ordinance  of  God,"  then  nothing  is  plainer  than  that  the 
Apostle  is  not  speaking  of  "an  ordinance  of  God,"  but  of  some- 
thing which  can  do  what  he  saj^s  it  does  do.  Again  ;  Dr.  Carson 
says,  "  The  Apostle  does  not  allege  that  submission  to  baptism 
was  an  evidence  of  putting  on  Christ;  for  it  is  not  such."  But 
the  Apostle  does  declare,  that  to  be  "baptized  into  Christ"  is  to 
put  on  Christ.  Then  why  will  Dr.  Carson  insist  upon  substituting 
for  "  baptism  into  Christ,"  a  "  dipping  into  water,"  which  cannot 
(according  to  his  confession)  clothe  with  Christy  and  thus  compel 
himself  to  contradict  the  Apostle  ?  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  Baptism 
into  Christ"  is  a  ritual  ordinance,  and  nothing  but  "a  figure"  of 
putting  on  Christ.  Paul  says,  "Baptism  into  Christ"  does,  in 
very  truth,  clothe  with  Christ,  and,  therefore,  "  Baptism  into 
Christ "  expresses  no  figure,  but  the  real  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


INTO  CHRIST — IN  CHRIST.  293 

Dr.  Carson  says,  "  Some  '  baptized  into  Christ '  might  not  turn 
out  to  be  real  believers,"  which  indeed  is  true  enough  of  "some" 
dipped  into  water,  but  applied  to  those  "  baptized  into  Christ,"  is 
untrue,  and  flatlj'^  contradicts  the  Apostle  who  affirms,  "  as  many 
as" — "whosoever  is  baptized  into  Christ, pw^s  on  Christ." 

eiq  Xpiavov  ijSanriffOyjTe  =  Xpcardv  kveSuaaaOs. 

The  language  of  the  Apostle  in  this  passage  is  complete  as  it 
stands.  To  introduce  a  ritual  ordinance  necessitates  (as  Dr. 
Carson  admits)  a  revolutionaiy  change  in  the  language  and  in 
the  sentiment.  Any  justifiable  interpretation  of  the  language  as 
it  stands,  must  affirm  what  the  Apostle  affirms,  to  wit :  All  bap- 
tized INTO  Christ  do  put  on  Christ,  and  consequently,  that  this 
is  not  ritual  baptism,  but  the  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

hduarjffOs  duva[j.iv  =  (iaTZTiffdijaeads  eiz  dovafuv. 

The  entire  equivalence  of  "  putting  on  "  (used  figuratively)  and 
of  "baptizing  into"  (used  figuratively)  is  farther  conclusively 
shown  by  a  comparison  of  the  parallel  passages,  Luke  24  :  49,  "  I 
send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  you,  tarry  .  .  .  until  (tvduayjtrOe 
duvajxiv)  ye  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high,"  and  Acts  1 : 4, 
5,  8,  Wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father,  which  ye  have  heard  of 
me.  .  .  .  Ye  shall  be  baptized  {i3aTzri(TO-q<TeaOs)  with  the  H0I3'  Ghost. 
.  .  .  Ye  shall  receive  (3u\/aficv)  power  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
come  upon  you. 

As  the  Apostle  expounds  bajitism  into  Christ  by  putting  on 
Christ,  so  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  expounds  his  promise  that  the 
Apostles  shall  be  clothed  with  power  for  their  Apostleship,  b}^  the 
Holy  Ghost  (the  promise  =  the  Holy  Ghost,  Acts  2  :  33),  by  re- 
peating that  promise,  through  the  same  inspired  writer,  in  the 
diverse  but  equivalent  terms,  ye  shall  be  baptized  into  power  for 
the  Apostleship,  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

While  the  main  point  is  thus  conclusively  established,  there  is 
an  incidental  confirmation  of  the  points  :  1.  'Ev  IJvsu/iari  "Ayiu)  used 
with  ^ar^ri'l.cu  (Acts  1 :  5)  is  expressive  of  agency:  2.  ^Ev  11/ A.  must 
be  supplied  (Luke  24  :  49)  as  the  investing,  clothing,  putting  on 
agency,  and,  also  (Gal.  3 :  27),  as  the  baptizing  and  putting  on 
agency:  3.  In  this  New  Testament  use  jSanril^cj  has  no  more  to  do 
with  dipping  into  water,  than  ivdutu  has  to  do  with  putting  on  a 
coat. 


294  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


BAPTISM   OF   ISRAEL   INTO    MOSES    TYPICAL    OF    BAPTISM    OF 
CHRISTIANS   INTO    CHRIST. 

1  Corinthians  10  :  2. 

Kot  TtavTE£  Eig  rbv  Muatjv  k(ianTi<javTo  ev  ry  vE(pe?iy  Kal  ev  ttj  dakaaci}, 
"  And  were  all  baptized  into  Moses  by  the  cloud  and  by  the  sea." 

OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Traniilation. 

The  leading  recent  writers  on  the  subject  of  baptism  are,  gen- 
erally, agreed  as  to  the  translation  of  the  first  clause  in  this  pas- 
sage. 

President  Halley,  President  Beecher,  Professor  Wilson,  Pro- 
fessor Stuart,  and  others,  unite  in  translating,  "  Baptized  into 
Moses ; "  and,  on  the  other  side,  Dr.  Carson,  Professor  Ripley, 
President  A.  Campbell  of  Bethany,  Ingham  of  England,  and 
others,  offer  the  same  translation,  ''  all  were  baptized  into  Moses." 

There  are  others,  however,  who  translate,  "  baptized  unto 
Moses."  Among  these  are  Dr.  Conant,  on  the  one  side,  and 
Bishop  Ellicott,  on  the  other.  Bishop  Ellicott  (Gal.  3  :  27)  says : 
"/jaTTTi'Cty  ££?,  has  two  significations,  1,  unto;  2,  into;  the  context 
showing  whether  it  means  only  object,  purpose;  or  union,  com- 
inunion  with.'"  He  thinks  that  "  elq  Xpitrrov,  eiq  to  ovofia,  ever  im- 
plies a  spiritual  and  mystical  union  ;  while  elq  jxeravoiav  elq  a<pe(Tcv 
d/j.apTtMv,  and  ek  Mujffr^v,  are  necessarily  less  comprehensive  and 
significant."  As  to  the  "  comprehensiveness  "  (within  their  sphere) 
of  these  phrases,  there  is  no  difference.  They  all  express  com- 
pleteness of  influence  over  their  objects.  As  to  "  significance," 
that  does  not  depend  upon  the  preposition,  but  upon  its  regimen. 
A  baptism  eig  perdvoiav  cannot  lose  its  character  as  a  baptism 
(which  it  does  by  the  translation  unto  repentance),  because  it 
differs  in  significance  from  a  baptism  s}-  .V^^^rov ;  nor  can  a  bap- 
tism ek  a(psf7cv  diiapnwv  lose  its  character  b}'  conversion  into,  unto 
the  remission  of  sins,  because  it  differs  immensely  in  significance 
from  a  baptism  sit  zd  wo/m  zoo  llazpdz.  ...  If  a  baptism  "  into  re- 
pentance," and  a  baptism  "into  the  remission  of  sins"  be  considered 
verbally  and  disconnectedl}'^,  their  significance  is  widely  diverse; 
but  if  they  be  considered  in  relation  to  the  gospel  system,  they 
have  an  equivalent  value  and  significance.    And  so,  a  baptism  dq 


INTO    MOSES.  295 

fierdvoiav  becomes  a  baptism  e;?  ci^scFiv  dfiaprcwv]  and  a  baptism  ££? 
a<pzaLv  becomes  a  baptism  dz  A'piardv,  and  a  baptism  er?  Xpctrrdv 
becomes  a  baptism  ei<;  rd  ovvfxa  rou  llarpoq^  y.ai  rob  Tluu,  xuc  rou  'Ayiou 
riveu/iaroq. 

None  of  these  baptisms  requires  or  allows  of  a  change  in  the 
translation  of  the  preposition.  That  is  a  fixed  element  in  such 
phrases.  The  diversity  of  significance  in  such  verbally  stated  bap- 
tisms must  always  be  found  in  the  regimen  of  the  preposition  which 
indicates  the  complement  to  the  idea  of  the  verb.  Hence  we  see, 
that  the  difference  between  the  baptisms  e]<;  Muj(T7}v  and  e}^  Xpiffrbv^ 
is  not  to  be  sought  in  a  modified  use  of  the  preposition  (making 
it  in  the  one  case  unto,  and  in  the  other  into),  but  in  the  essen- 
tial distinction  between  Moses  and  Christ.  The  proper  force  of 
a  baptism  into  Moses  will  differ  as  boundlessly  from  a  baptism 
into  Christ,  as  Moses  the  servant  differs  from  Christ  the  Lord. 

The  translation  of  i>  in  the  second  clause  is  generally  given  as 
local,  "  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,"  with  an  application  to  the 
Israelites,  as  indicating  the  place  where,  or  that  in  which,  they 
were  baptized. 

There  are  insuperable  difficulties  to  such  a  view;  1.  It  is  con- 
tradictory to  the  facts.  Granting  that,  without  undue  violence, 
they  might  be  said  to  be  "  in  the  sea,"  still,  there  is  no  violence 
which  can  locate  them  "  in  the  clouds  The  conclusion,  then,  is 
plain  ;  that  the  sentiment  of  the  passage  cannot  turn  on  the  Israel- 
ites being  "in  the  sea,"  for  whatever  is  '-'•in  the  sea,"  is  also  '"'•  in 
the  cloud  ;"  2.  This  error,  which  puts  the  Israelites  "  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea,"  is  grounded  in  an  antecedent  error  which  makes 
h  expository  of  the  idea  of  /SaTrrt'Cw,  while,  in  truth,  b>  has  nothing 
to  do  with  such  oflEice,  which  belongs  wholly  to  slq  through  which 
the  verb  exhausts  itself.  Principle,  therefore,  joins  with  fact  to 
forbid  a  local  idea  being  attached  to  this  preposition  so  far  as  the 
Israelites  are  concerned. 

If  a  local  and  not  instrumental  idea  be  given  to  Iv,  its  relation 
must  be  transferred  from  the  Israelites  to  the  power  of  Jehovah. 
It  is  a  fact,  that  the  power  of  Jehovah  was  "z'/i  the  sea,"  miracu- 
lously dividing  its  waters ;  and  it  is  a  fact,  that  the  power  of 
Jehovah  was  '•Hn  the  cloud,"  miraculously  dividing  out  to  the 
Eg3'ptians,  darkness  from  the  one  side,  and  to  the  Israelites,  light 
from  the  other  side.  While  the  facts  forbid  that  "  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea  "  should  be  applied  to  the  Israelites  ;  the'  facts  de- 
mand that  the  power  of  Jehovah  should  be  recognized  as  alike 


296  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM.     • 

"in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  And  herein  we  have  the  clear 
and  unquestionable  basis  for  the  instrumental  translation  of  this 
preposition.  If  the  power  of  Jehovah  was  "  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea,"  miraculousl}'  employing  them  in  the  accomplishment  of 
this  baptism,  then,  obviously,  they  were  instrumental  agencies ; 
and  nothing  can  be  more  conformed  to  the  truth  than  the  trans- 
lation, "  hy  the  cloud  and  hy  the  sea."  And  this  is  precisel}^  what 
the  exigency  of  the  case  demands ;  the  baptism  is  declared  to  be 
^Hnto  Moses,"  and  the  agency  required  for  such  baptism  is  now 
furnished  in  the  double  miracle,  wrought  by  the  power  of  Jehovah 
through  "  the  cloud  and  the  sea,"  which  so  profoundly  impressed 
the  minds  of  the  Israelites  and  brouglit  them  fully  to  acknowledge 
the  often  doubted  and  questioned  mission  of  Moses,  so  as  to  justify 
the  declaration  that  they  were  now,  and  thus,  baptized  into  him. 

Interpretation. 

Ambrose,  I,  867,  says,  "  Then  we  read  that,  in  virtute  sua  magna 
et  brachio  suo  excelso,  populum  suum  de  terra  ^gj^pti  liberavit, 
quando  traduxit  eum  per  mare  Rubrum,  in  quo  fecit  figura  bap- 
tismatis." 

Ambrose,  in  this  passage,  uses,  "iw  virtute  sua  magna  et  brachio 
suo  excelso,"  as  Paul  uses  the  corresponding  Greek  preposition 
in,  cv  TTj  v£(pikrj  xai  iv  rfj  OaXdfTffrj.  The  Latin  "  in  "  becomes  instru- 
mental because  Jehovah  is  represented  as  being  "t?i  his  great 
strength  and  ^n  his  exalted  arm,"  and  therefore,  "  by  them  he 
delivered  his  people  and  led  them  through  the  sea."  The  "  figure 
of  baptism  "  which  Ambrose  and  his  associates  find  in  this  trans- 
action is  very  different  from  that  of  those  who,  in  these  last  days, 
make  Christian  baptism  a  dipi^ing.,  which  neither  he  nor  they 
knew  anything  about.  The  figure,  he  says,  is  in  the  drowning  of 
the  Egypt  ans  and  saving  the  Hebrews,  which  is  "  daily  showa 
in  baptism  by  the  drowning  of  sin  and  error,  and  the  saving  of 
piety  and  innocence."  How  the  power  of  Jehovah  was  in  the 
divided  sea  and  miraculous  cloud  Ambrose  (III,  393)  shows  by 
quoting,  "  Thou  didst  send  forth  thy  Spirit  and  divided  the  sea 
for  them  ;"  and  again  (424),  "  The  cloud  is  the  Holy  Spirit." 
"  By  the  Holy  Spirit  and  by  the  water  a  t3'pe  of  baptism  was  ex- 
hibited." TV,  827  :  "  The  water  saved  Israel  and  slew  Pharaoh. 
Baptism  saves  the  likeness  of  God  and  destro3's  the  sins  which  it 
served.     The  waters,  a  wall  on  their  right  and  left,  designate  our 


BAPTISM    INTO    MOSES.  297 

faith  which  we  receive  iu  baptism ;  our  wall  defending  us  from 
enemies  visible  and  invisible." 

Such  interpretation  has  interest  and  value  as  a  display  of  imagi- 
nation ;  but  as  for  any  exegetical  value  in  expounding  the  "  bap- 
tism into  Moses,"  it  must  be  classed  with  "grave,"  "burial," 
"womb,"  "mother,"  and  "a  dry  dip,"  as  wood,  hay,  and  stubble, 
fit  only  to  be  burned. 

Basil  M,,  lY,  124:  "The  sea  and  the  cloud,  induced  at  that 
time,  faith  through  amazement,  but  as  a  type,  it  signified,  for  the 
future,  the  grace  that  was  to  come." 

Basil  makes  the  sea  and  the  cloud  agencies  accomplishing  their 
end  by  the  most  overpowering  influence.  Tliis  is  shown  by  the 
additional  statement,  "  The  cloud  was  a  shadow  of  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  which  cools  the  flame  of  the  passions  by  mortifying  the 
members."  He  adds,  "  ru-uio'z  et?  Mcorrrjv  efianriaOrjaav  they  were 
typically  baptized  into  Moses." 

John  of  Damascus,  I,  261  (Paris,  1112),  also,  speaks  of  this 
baptism  as  accomplished  by  the  sea  and  the  cloud  as  agencies — 
To  dca  ry^q  OaMfTcrrjq  y.di  r^?  vefil-qiq. 

Jerome,  XI,  "745,  thus  comments:  '•''  Et  omnes  in  Iloyse  bap- 
tizati  sunt.^^  "  In  Moj^se,  qui  Christi  typum  gerebat — Were  bap- 
tized into  Moses  who  was  a  type  of  Christ."  Jerome  believed 
that  this  baptism  was  "z»<o  MosEs"  as  a  type,  just  as  the  after- 
baptism  was  to  be  '■'■into  Christ  "  the  antitype. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  interpretation  of  the  baptism  "into 
Moses  "  by  these  early  writers  receives  its  special  coloring  from 
their  peculiar  views  of  Christian  baptism,  which  they  regarded  as 
herein  typified. ' 

They  regarded  the  Israelites  as  a  type  of  Christ's  people,  and 
Moses  as  a  type  of  Christ ;  and  as  they  believed  that  all  his  people 
were  baptized  into  Christ  through  the  .twofold  agency  of  water 
and  of  the  Hol}^  Spirit,  jointly  and  simultaneously  operating,  so, 
they  believed  that  all  the  Israelites  were  baptized  "  into  Moses  " 
through  the  twofold  agency, of  "the  sea  and  the  cloud,"  repre- 
senting the  water  and  the  Spirit ;  and  as  they  farther  believed 
that  the  effect  of  the  conjoint  agency  of  water  and  Spirit  was  to 
destroy  sin  and  to  save  the  soul,  so  they  believed  that  such  effect 
was  represented  by  the,  destruction  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  sav- 
ing of  the  Hebrews.  As  they  did  not  believe  that  fiaizri'^a}  ex- 
pressed a  definite  act,  to  dip,  there  is  no  attempt  to  discover,  with 
the  modern  friends  of  that  theory,  "  a  dry  dip  "  (Carson,  p.  120) ; 


298  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

and  as  the}'  did  not  believe  that  a  covering  in  water  was  Cliristian 
baptism,  so,  tliere  is  no  attempt  to  make  a  covering  out  of  water 
walls  (one  mile  or  five  miles  apart),  and  a  cloud  roof  which  had  no 
existence. 

This  interpretation,  so  far  as  it  is  limited  to  the  elements  in  the 
Apostle's  statement,  is  substantially  correct:  1.  The  subjects  of 
this  baptism  were  "all  Israel;"  2.  Tlie  verbal  receiving  element, 
into  which  and  under  the  controlling  power  of  which  these  subjects 
of  this  baptism  pass,  is  Moses  ;  3.  The  agencj^  effecting  this  bap- 
tism is  the  power  of  Jehovah  miraculously  operating  "in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea."  This  exhausts  the  statement  of  Paul.  What  is 
more  than  this  is  Patrism. 

Dr.  Carson  and  other  Baptist  Writers. 

Dr.  Carson  (p.  119)  speaks  of  this  baptism  and  gives  the  gen- 
erally received  view  among  his  friends.  As  his  views  have  been 
presented  and  considered  in  Judaic  Baptism  (pp.  293-301)  they 
will  now  be  only  briefly  glanced  at.  He  saj's  :  "  They  (the  Israel- 
ites) are  said  to  have  been  baptized.  Therefore  there  is  in  their 
passage  through  the  sea  something  that  represents  the  external 
form  and  the  purpose  of  Christian  baptism.  It  is,  therefore,  figu- 
ratively called  by  the  name,  of  the  Christian  ordinance,  because 
of  external  similarity  as  well  as  figuring  the  same  event.  The 
ooino-  dovvn  into  the  sea,  the  being  covered  by  the  cloud,  the  issu- 
ing out  on  the  other  side,  resembled  the  baptism  of  believers, 
attested  their  faith  in  Moses  as  a  temporal  saviour,  and  figured 
the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ  and  Christians.  The  bap- 
tisms of  Pentecost  and  the  Red  Sea  were  dry  baptisms." 

1.  "The  Israelites  are  said  to  have  been  baptized."  This  is  a 
repetition  of  the  eliding  (quotation  so  frequently  met  with,  and  so 
all-essential  to  the  friends  of  a  dipping  into  watkr.  The  Israelites 
are  not  only  said  to  be  "  baptized,"  but  the}'  are  said  to  be  "  bap- 
tized into  Moses."  Now,  if  "  Moses  "  is  water,  then  it  makes  no 
difference  whether  it  is  said  that  they  were  baptized  "into  water" 
or  "  into  Moses  ;"  but  so  long  as  the  babe  in  the  bulrush  cradle 
differs  from  the  waters  in  which  he  floats,  it  will  be  better  to  take 
the  Scripture  statement — "  The  Israelites  were  baptized  into 
Moses."  And  with  all  who  understandingly  receive  this  statement 
of  inspiration  the  theory  of  a  dipping  into  water  perishes  as  abso- 
lutely as  Pharaoh  in  the  Red  Sea. 


DR.    CARSON    AND    OTHER    BAPTIST    WRITERS.  299 

2.  "  Therefore  the  passage  through  the  sea  represents  the  ex- 
ternal form  of  Christian  baptism."  This  "  therefore  "  is  a  deduc- 
tion from  the  baptism  into  Moses,  and  has  as  much  logical  con- 
nection with  it,  as,  "John  Smith  is  like  his  father,  therefore  John 
Smith's  horse  is  like  James  Jones." 

It  is  Dr.  Carson  and  not  Paul  who  says,  that  this  baptism  is  to 
be  found  in  the  passage  through  the  sea,  and  not  in  the  relation 
established  by  Jehovah  between  Israel  and  Moses.  And  his  reas- 
oning from  the  baptism  into  Moses  to  a  resemblance  between  the 
agency  eflfecting  that  baptism  and  the  external  form  of  Christian 
baptism  is  the  same  as  if  he  should  say :  "  Gedaliah  was  baptized 
into  drunkenness  by  drinking  wine ;  therefore^  drinking  wine  re- 
sembles the  external  form  of  Christian  baptism  ; "  or,  "  Satyrus  was 
baptized  into  stupor  by  swallowing  an  opiate ;  therefore^  swallow- 
ing an  opiate  is  like  the  external  form  of  Christian  baptism." 

Dr.  Carson's  error  is  a  substitution  of  the  agency  in  effecting  a 
baptism  for  the  baptism  effected.  Dr.  Carson  farther  errs  in 
assuming  that  there  is  any  "external  form  "  in  Christian  baptism 
arising  out  of  a  dipping  into  water.  There  is  no  such  language 
in  the  New  Testament  as  "  baptizing  into  water,"  much  less  dip- 
ping into  water.  And  in  a  baptism  "  into  Christ  "  there  is  neither 
"exterior  form  "  nor  interior,  but  a  great  spiritual  result,  just  as 
there  was  a  grand  moral  result  in  the  baptism  of  all  Israel  "  into 
Moses." 

3.  "  It  "  (the  passage)  "  is  therefore  figuratively  called  by  the 
name  of  the  Christian  ordinance,  because  of  external  similarity." 

There  is  not  one  word  in  Scripture,  Old  Testament  or  New 
Testament,  which  calls  the  passage  through  the  sea  a  baptism. 
There  is  not  one  word  of  Scripture  to  prove  that  the  term  "  bap- 
tize," as  used  to  express  the  relation  between  the  Israelites  and 
Moses,  after  the  double  miracle  wrought  to  attest  his  divine  mis- 
sion, was  borrowed  from  "  the  Christian  oi'dinance."  The  essen- 
tial power  of  the  word  is  its  own  sufficient  vindication.  It  was 
used  by  heathen,  by  Jews,  and  by  Christians  with  precisely  the 
same  general  force  (the  specific  applications  being  various,  and 
the  resultant  idea  being  governed  by  such  specific  application)  as 
it  is  here  used  by  Paul.  It  is  not  "  the  passage  "  which  is  the 
baptism  but  the  condition  established  in  the  relation  of  Israel  to 
Moses. 

4.  "  The  going  down  into  the  sea,  the  being  covered  by  the 
cloud,  and  the  issuing  out  on  the  other  side,  resembled  the  bap- 


300  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

tism  of  believers ;  attested  their  faith  in  Moses  as  a  temporal 
saviour." 

This  is  an  attempt  to  establish  a  resemblance  between  some- 
thing and  nothing,  except  in  so  far  as  it  may  be  found  in  the 
theor}'  of  Dr.  Carson  and  his  friends.  Certainly,  in  Christian 
baptism  there  is  neither  "  going  down,"  nor  "  covering  over," 
nor  "  issuing  out,"  If  such  things  be  sought  for  through  iSartriZo) 
and  its  assumed  relations  and  necessities  as  connected  with  water, 
the  answer  is  both  short  and  sharp,  namely,  this  :  Neither  /5«-r;'^w, 
nor  jSd-KTKTfj.a^  nor  /Ja^r-torr^c  is  ever  used  in  the  New  Testament  in 
complementary  relation  with  water ;  therefore  the  theory  which 
makes  Christian  baptism  a  dipping  into  water,  with  its  going 
down,  covering  in,  and  coming  up  never  had  any  Scriptural  ex- 
istence. 

The  idea  that  this  passage  exemplified  "  believers'  baptism  " 
and  attested  "  their  faith  in  Moses  as  a  temporal  saviour  "  is,  if 
possible,  a  more  absolute  myth  than  the  other.  It  is  in  the  most 
absolute  conti'adiction  to  the  statement  of  Scripture.  Never  was 
unbelief  in  Moses  more  rampant  in  Israel,  never  was  their  outcry 
against  his  leadership  more  loud  than  in  that  hour  when  they 
stood  on  the  shore  of  the  Red  Sea.  It  was  to  crush  out  this  un- 
belief that  Jehovah  interposed,  and  by  his  power  dividing  the  sea, 
and  by  his  power  pouring  light  upon  them  and  darkness  upon  the 
Egyptians  all  night  long,  and  by  that  same  power  drowning  their 
enemies  in  the  returning  waters,  he  did  overthrow  their  unbelief; 
but  it  was  not  overthrown  until  the  passage  was  completed,  and 
"  they  saw  their  enemies  dead  upon  the  shore,"  then,  and  not  till 
then,  did  they  believe  in  Moses  as  the  Servant  of  the  Lord ;  and 
then,  and  not  till  then,  were  they  baptized  into  Moses.  "And 
Israel  saw  that  great  work  which  the  Lord  did  upon  the  Egyptians ; 
and  the  people  feared  the  Lord,  and  believed  the  Lord,  and  his 
servant  Moses  "  (Exod.  14  :  31). 

There  is  no  distinctive  feature  in  "  believer's  baptism  "  w^hich 
is  worth  more  than  this  claim  for  belief  on  the  part  of  these 
Israelites  who  come  to  tlie  water  saying  to  Moses, "Because  there 
were  no  graves  in  Egypt,  hast  thou  taken  us  away  to  die  in  the 
wilderness?  Wherefore  hast  thou  thus  dealt  with  us,  to  carry  us 
forth  out  of  Egypt?  Is  not  this  the  word  that  we  did  tell  thee  in 
Egypt,  saying,  Let  us  alone  that  we  may  serve  the  Egyptians  ? 
For  it  had  been  better  for  us  to  serve  the  Egyptians,  than  that 
we  should  die  in  the  wilderness  "  (Exod.  14  :  11,  12). 


DR.    CARSON    AND    OTHER    BAPTIST    WRITERS.       301 

It  is  amusing  to  hear  Dr,  Carson  appealing  to  this  baptism,  in 
which  every  infant  among  the  millions  of  Israel  sha?^es  equally 
with  its  parents^  as  a  "  believer's  baptism."  In  conclusion,  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  while  this  baptism  was  a  type  (tuttoc 
1  Cor.  10:6)  baptism,  it  was  none  the  less  a  real  baptism  ;  and  it 
is  only  because  it  was  a  real  baptism  that  it  is  suitable  to  be  a 
type  baptism.  Moses  was  a  type  of  Christ,  and  Israel  was  a  type 
of  the  church,  and  the  faith  of  Israel  toward  Moses,  as  their 
divinely  appointed  head,  was  typical  of  the  faith  of  the  church 
toward  her  Divine  head ;  and  the  faith  of  Israel  begotten  by  the 
mighty  power  of  Jehovah,  miraculously  working  through  the  cloud 
and  the  sea  as  agencies,  is  a  tj^pe  of  the  faith  of  the  church  be- 
gotten by  the  same  Divine  power  working  through  appropriate 
agencies.  The  baptism  of  Israel  "  into  Moses  "  was  a  real  bap- 
tism, and  directly  relates,  as  a  type,  to  the  real  baptism  "into 
Christ "  by  the  Holy  Spirit  working  faith  in  the  soul,  and  has  no 
relation  whatever  to  Ritual  baptism. 

Prof.  Ripley  gives  a  substantially  correct  interpretation  of  the 
phrase  "  baptized  into  Moses,"  but  afterward  disconnects  the 
baptism  from  Moses  entirely,  and  attaches  it  to  the  passage 
through  the  sea  as  what  might,  apologetically,  be  called  a  baptism. 
He  says  (p.  100),  "The  language  is  evidently  figurative,  and  is 
intended  to  represent  the  Israelites  not  as  being  literally  baptized, 
but  as  submitting  themselves  to  the  special  authority  and  guid- 
ance of  Moses,  as  Christians,  when  baptized,  submit  themselves 
avowedly  to  Christ.  ...  A  time  when  they  made  a  very  signal 
surrender  of  themselves  to  Moses  as  the  servant  of  God.  .  .  .  By 
baptism  Christians  avow  their  confidence  in  Christ,  their  choice 
of  him,  and  their  subjection  unto  him  in  all  the  offices  which  he 
sustains." 

1.  "  The  language  is  evidently  figurative."  Certainly  "  baptized 
into  Moses  "  is  a  figurative  expression ;  but  figure  is  neither  fiction 
nor  shadow.  The  profoundest  realities  may  be  expressed  in  fig- 
urative phrase.  "  I  am  the  vine ;  ye  are  the  branches,"  is  a  figura- 
tive phrase ;  but  does  it  an}'^  the  less  express  a  profound  reality  ? 
"  Put  off  Pythagoras  "  is  figure  ;  but  does  it  not  express  reality  ? 
"  Put  on  Tarquin  "  is  figure ;  but  does  it  not  express  a  reality  in 
which  the  spirit  of  Tarquin  reigns  predominant  ?  "  Baptized  by 
drunkenness  ;"  "  Baptized  into  insensibility  ;"  "  Baptized  into 
impurity,"  are  all  figurative  phrases ;  but  do  they  not  all  express 
intense  realities  ?     How  is  it,  then,  that  "  baptized  into  Moses  " 


302  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

fails,  on  the  ground  of  figure,  to  express  that  which  is  most  real, 
and  in  which  reality  Moses  bears  the  supremac}^  ?  But  Prof. 
Ripley  recognizes  a  reality  which  this  phrase  expresses,  and  which 
nothing  else  in  the  transaction  does,  to  wit,  "  The  language  rep- 
resents the  Israelites  as  submitting  themselves  to  the  special  au- 
thority and  guidance  of  Moses.^''  Now  this  is  the  substantial 
reality  which  is  expressed  by  the  phrase  "  baptized  into  Moses;" 
and  if  Prof.  Ripley  would  rest  in  it,  and  in  its  logical  relations, 
all  would  be  well;  but  he  does  not.  He  allies  this  baptism  "into 
Moses"  (which  is  a  profound  realit}- effected  in  the  souls  of  Israel 
by  the  power  of  Jehovah)  with  a  profession  of  submission  to 
Christ  made  in  ritual  baptism,  which  profession  may  be  fact  or 
fiction.  This  cannot  be  right.  This  Red  Sea  baptism  is  not  the 
type  of  a  ritual  baptism  which  has  no  such  controlling  reality, 
but  of  that  most  real  baptism  which  is  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  baptizes  not  the  body  with  water  nor  into  water,  but 
the  soul  "  into  Jesus  Christ,"  effecting  a  real  change  in  its  condi- 
tion, shown  not  by  a  profession,  but  by  a  true  "submission  to  the 
authority  and  guidance"  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  truth,  which  is 
the  reality  expressed  by  "baptized  into  Christ,"  Prof  Ripley  also 
distinctly  expresses  when  he  says :  "  Christians  avow  their  confi- 
dence in  Christ,  their  choice  of  him,  and  their  subjection  to  him, 
in  all  the  offices  which  he  sustains.''^  When  this  is  done  in  truth, 
it  is  done  because  the  soul  has  been  "  baptized  into  Christ "  b}^ 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  the  reality  consequent  upon  such  baptism 
is,  that  tlie  soul  has  "put  on  Christ." 

If  Prof  Pvipley  would  rest  in  this  truth  as  expositor}^  of  the 
baptism  "into  Moses,"  and  of  the  baptism  "into  Christ,"  and  as 
exhaustive  of  that  baptism,  nothing  more  could  be  desired  ;  but 
he  either  altaiidons  this  sentiment  as  interpretative  of  the  figura- 
tively exi)ressed  phrase,  or  he  makes  use  of  the  baptism  thus 
expressed  a  second  time^  converting  it  into  the  sea  passage  of  the 
Israelites,  and  a  ritual  use  of  water  for  Christians.  This  is  with- 
out authority  from  Scripture,  and  is  in  itself  impossible. 

Alexander  Campbell  of  Bethany  (p.  251)  says:  "To  baptize 
'  into  the  remission  of  sins,'  or  '  into  what  were  30U  l)aptized,' 
intimates  that  the  sul)ject  of  that  act  is  about  passing  into  a  new 
state,  as  entering  into  partnership  or  entering  into  marriage  in- 
dicates that  it  is  for  such  purposes  the  action,  whatever  it  may 
be,  is  performed." 
•  This  statement  is  open  to  two  objections:   1.  Ad  hominem.     No 


DR.    CARSON    AND    OTHER    BAPTIST    WRITERS.       303 

one  who  sa3^s  '■^jSanrtXoj  has  but  one  meaning,  which  is  a  definite 
a,ct  to  dip, ^'  is  justified  in  saying  (3 anrcXw  si^  rj' carries  its  object 
"into  a  new  sfate.''^  If  I  dip  an  object  into  water,  I  do  not  thereby 
give  to  such  object  a  status  within  water.  The  essential  force  of 
"dip"  forbids  this.  It  necessitates  the  prompt  withdrawal  of  the 
object.  If  I  dip  into  mathematics,  I  do  not  enter  into  a  new  state, 
whose  sphere  is  "  mathematics."  Such  idea  is  precluded  by  the 
literal  meaning  of  dip,  which  must  always  be  the  basis  of  meta- 
phorical use.  The  momentary  introduction  of  an  object  into  a 
fluid  necessarily  begets  the  idea  of  a  trivial  impression  upon  the 
object  dipped.  The  metaphorical  use  of  dip,  consequently^,  always 
conve^'s  this  idea :  If  I  dip  into  mathematics,  into  business,  into 
pleasure,  into  politics,  into  vice,  or  into  Shakspjeare,  the  idea  ex- 
pressed is  not  that  I  have  passed  into  a  new  state  in  relation  to 
mathematics,  business,  pleasure,  politics,  vice,  or  Sliakspeare,  but 
that  I  have  come  under  such  influences  in  a  very  trivial  degree. 
Therefore  no  one  who  aftirms  that  i3a7zu!^(o  means  to  dip,  has  a 
right  to  say  '■'■  j3o.7:tc^u>  £!?  tj' intimates  the  passing  into  a  new  state." 
If  such  meaning  (l3anTt^w:=d{p)  be  true,  then  a  baptism  eJc  a<p£<nv 
cannot  express  a  state  characterized  hy  "remission  of  sins;"  nor 
can  a  baptism  dq  Mwffy^v  express  a  state  characterized  by  submis- 
sion to  the  distinctive  claims  of  Moses  as  a  Leader  appointed  by 
Jehovah  ;  nor  can  a  baptism  eiq  XpKTrov  express  a  state  character- 
ized by  "  subjection  to  him  in  all  the  offices  which  he  sustains." 
But  Campbell  and  Ripley  and  Carson  and  Conant  admit  that  such 
is  the  meaning  of  these  phrases ;  therefore,  [ianrCw  cannot  mean 
to  dip,  but  must  mean  what  this  whole  Inquiry  from  first  to  last 
shows  that  it  does  mean,  namely,  to  change  the  state  or  condition 
of  an  object  without  limitation  of  time.  1.  By  withinness  which 
does  not  provide  for  removal;  2.  Without  vnthinness  by  any  act 
or  influence  competent  to  effect  an  analogous  change  of  state  or 
condition. 

2.  Ad  verum.  The  second  objection  relates  to  the  merits  of 
the  statement — "  To  baptize  into  something  (eiVr:),  intimates  that 
the  subject  of  that  act  is  about  passing  into  a  new  state." 

This  statement  involves  a  fallacious  double  use  of  baptize 
where  it  in  fact  occurs  but  once,  and  in  its  second  use  is  intro- 
duced in  an  oflBce  alien  from  the  first,  and  with  a  meaning  con- 
tradictor}' to  it.  The  proof  is  this  :  If  iSa-TiZw  elq  tI,  e.  g.,  elq  //era- 
voiav,  ei<;  afetrcv,  ei'c  Mwirr^v,  elq  XptciTov,  expresses  "  the  passing  into  a 
new  state,''  then  it  does  so  b}'  reason  of  the  force  of  [ia-KrU^m  eiq, 


304  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

the  nature  of  the  state  being  denoted  by  the  representative  ri. 
This  use  of  [ianTiZw  is  as  exhaustive  of  its  function,  as  in  the 
phrases,  "  The  cannon-ball  was  buried  into  the  earth,  or  into  the 
SAND,  or  into  the  cotton  bale,"  the  word  "buried  "  is  exhausted 
by  its  complementary  use  with  "earth,"  "sand,"  "  cotton  bale." 
But  Campbell,  and  Ripley,  and  friends,  are  not  satisfied  with 
such  duty;  having  used  l^anrc^oj  in  organic  relation  with  eiq  rt 
(=  ei<;  31u)<Trjv),  ii  is  again  introduced,  thus :  "This  phrase  inti- 
mates that  the  subject  of  that  act  V — what  act  ?  That  act  which 
is  in  j3aT:TC-^io  elq  ri  (=  fxera'/oiav^  atpeffcv^  Mw<T7jV,  Xpcffrov)  ?  By  no 
means  ;  but  one  wholly  diverse,  as  will  appear  by  bringing  to 
light  the  suppressed  phrase  yJaTrn'^w  eU  udiop  which  is  represented 
in  "  that  act  received  by  the  subject."  The  full  statement  is  this : 
"  The  phrase  '  baptized  into  remission '  expresses  the  entrance 
into  a  new  state  of  remitted  sin,  and  intimates  that  the  subject 
of  the  act  of  baptizing  into  "  ("  remission  ?"  no,  but  into)  "  water 
(!)  enters  into  a  new  state"  ( — of  what?  of  water  covering?  no, 
but)  "of  remitted  sin."  This  repetition  of /JaTm'Cw  (in  wholly  new 
and  diverse  relations,  substituting  a  baptism  into  water  for  a 
baptism  into  Moses,  into  Christ,  etc.),  is  too  obviousl}^  subversive 
of  truth,  to  require  its  being  declared  to  be  without  foundation 
in  Scripture.  It  might  as  well  be  said,  that  "  buried,"  in  the 
phrase,  "  the  cannon-ball  was  buried  into  the  earth,"  refers  to  and 
expounds  the  manner  of  "  the  act  "  in  touching  oflT  the  cannon. 
This  confounding  of  the  act  of  baptism,  as  an  agency,  with  the 
baptism,  the  new  state  or  condition  resultant  from  such  act,  is 
exhibited  in  the  illustrations  of  partnership  and  marriage  by  which 
Alexander  Campbell  seeks  to  vindicate  his  position. 

He  says :  "  To  baptize  into  remission  "  (into  Moses)  "  intimates, 
that  the  subject  of  that  act  is  about  passing  into  a  new  state;  as 
entering  into  partnership,  or  entering  into  marriage,  indicates 
that  it  is  for  such  purposes  the  action,  whatever  it  may  be,  is 
performed."  Now,  "  entering  into  "  as  related  to  "  partnership  " 
might  as  well  be  repeated  in  "  the  action,"  and  in  doing  so,  you 
might  as  well  substitute,  alderman  i<  office,  for  "  partnership " 
(covering  "  partnership "  and  the  surreptitiously  introduced  al- 
derman\s  office  by  the  same  "  entering  into  ")  as  to  make  "  bap- 
tized into  "  cover  both  "  remission  "  (Moses,  etc.),  and  a  surrep- 
titiously introduced  2^001  of  water. 

The  act  of  agi'eement  to  enter  into  partnership,  or  into  mar- 
riage, is  no  more  "  the  new  state  "  of  partnership  or  marriage, 


DR.    CARSON    AND    OTHER    BAPTIST    WRITERS.  305 

than  is  a  means  its  end,  or  a  cause  its  effect.  The  miraculous 
division  of  the  sea,  and  shining  of  the  cloud,  and  destruction  of 
their  enemies,  were  means  of  baptizing  the  unbelieving  Israelites 
"into  Moses,"  thoroughly  changing  their  state  of  unbelief;  but 
these  means  toward  this  baptism  were  not  the  baptism  which 
Jehovah  eifected  through  them. 

C.  Stovel  (Christian  Baptism,  London),  and  writers  of  his 
views  generally,  fall  into  the  same  surreptitious  double  use  of 
l^anriZa).  He  says  (p.  TO) :  "  When  the  nation  was  baptized,  initi- 
ated into  Moses,  being  immersed  in  cloud  and  sea,  they  entered 
under  an  authority  the  exercise  of  which  was  destined  to  secure 
the  glory  of  God  to  whom  they  were  subject." 

Here  "baptized"  is  first  used  to  express  "initiation  into" — 
"  entering  under  the  authority  of  Moses,"  which  is  its  i^roper  and 
onl}^  function  as  used  by  Paul ;  but  after  having  got  such  efficient 
service  out  of  it  (quite  enough  for  one  word),  he  uses  it  a  second 
time  for  very  different  work,  to  wit,  "  immersing  all  Israel  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  .sea,"  of  which  Paul  does  not  sa}'  one  word  and 
which  in  itself  is  most  untrue. 

Prof.  Wilson,  of  Belfast,  in  commenting  on  this  statement  (p. 
2t5)  says :  "  This  comment  presents  a  very  unfavorable  view  of 
the  author's  acquaintance  with  language  and  of  his  power  of  dis- 
crimination. He  first  identifies  the  baptism  of  the  text  with 
initiation  into  Moses ;  and  next  he  proceeds  to  apply  it,  in  the 
same  occurrence,  to  a  supposed  immersion  in  cloud  and  sea !  In 
expounding  the  term  baptized  Mr.  Stovel  is  at  liberty  to  choose 
between  initiated  and  immersed ;  but  to  represent  ^ar.rlZu)  as 
standing  for  both  and  doing  twofold  duty,  in  the  same  instance, 
is  arbitrary  and  apocrj'phal.  Baptism  '  into  Moses '  clearly  im- 
plied the  acknowledgment  of  his  official  claims  as  a  Leader  and 
Lawgiver"  (p.  308). 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  "acknowledgment  of  the 
official  claims  of  Moses"  was  not  a  mere  formal,  verbal,  cere- 
monial acknowledgment ;  but  was  bond  fide,  real,  from  convinced 
intellect  and  conscience,  the  result  of  divine  power  (not  of  sym- 
bolism) applied  to  their  spiritual  life  through  the  miracles  wrought 
before  them  and  for  them.  It  was,  therefore,  in  its  nature  essen- 
tially diverse  from,  and  has  no  direct  relation  to,  Christian  ritual 
baptism. 

The  baptism  of  Israel  into  Moses,  by  divine  power  constraining 
to  the  true  and  profound  conviction  of  his  mission,  is  immediately 

20 


306  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

related  (as  a  type)  to  the  baptism  of  sinners  into  Christ,  by  divine 
power  constraining  to  the  true  and  profound  conviction  of  his 
mission  as  the  Redeemer  of  his  people  from  the  bondage  of  sin 
and  the  fear  of  death. 

On  the  other  hand,  Christian  ritual  baptism  neither  has  nor 
can  have  any  real  baptism  of  its  own,  but  symbolizes  that  real 
baptism  into  Christ,  which  was  tj'pified  by  the  real  baptism  into 
Moses.  The  reality  in  the  baptism  into  Christ  effected  by  divine 
power  is,  the  subjection  of  the  soul  to  Christ  and  the  participa- 
tion in  his  peculiar  benefits  ;  the  primary  one  of  which  is,  purifica- 
tion by  regeneration  and  remission  of  sin,  which  is,  therefore, 
made  the  subject  of  symbolization  by  the  pure  water  of  the  rite. 
And  inasmuch  as  while  the  phrase  baptism  into  Christ  expresses 
the  intensest  realitj^,  that  reality  has  no  connection  with  an  actual 
baptism,  or  with  an  actual  dipping,  or  pouring,  or  sprinkling; 
such  things  can  have  no  place  in  the  rite  save  as  accidents  or  as 
matters  of  will.  And  in  accordance  with  the  truth,  that  such 
things  do  not  enter  into  the  essence  of  the  rite,  there  is  not  one 
word  said  in  Scripture  of  any  of  them  in  the  performance  of  the 
rite. 

Dr.  Conant  (Meaning  and  Use  of  Baptizein,  p.  104)  says: 
"  Baptizein,  by  analogy,  expressed  the  coming  into  a  new  state 
of  life  or  experience,  in  which  one  was,  as  it  were,  inclosed  or 
swallowed  up,  so  that  temporarily  or  permanently,  he  belonged 
wholly  to  it." 

If  /JaTrrt'Cof  means  to  dij)  and  has  but  one  meaning,  as  we  are 
told,  then  it  is  as  impossible  that  it  should  have  the  meaning 
here  assigned  to  it,  as  that  a  cradled  infant  should  have  the 
strength  of  the  Son  of  Manoah, 

Particular  cases  of  baptism  which  are  given  establish  the  same 
conclusion:  "Baptism  by  calamities  :=  swallowed  up  b}'^  them  as 
by  an  ingulfing  flood."  Is  that  a  dipping  ?  "  Baptism  by  debts  = 
owing  vast  sums  and  no  means  of  paying  them."  Is  that  a  dip- 
ping ?  "  Baptism  by  wine  =  faculties  totally  overborne  and  pi'os- 
trated  by  it."  Is  that  a  dipping  ?  "  Baptism  by  sophistries  = 
mind  wholly  confounded  by  them."  Is  that  a  dipping  ?  When 
the  til)  of  the  finger  shall  cover  the  breadth  of  the  Universe,  then 
will  dij)  cover  such  usage  of  /3a7rr:'^<w. 

The  statements  of  Dr.  Conant  are  perfectly  true,  and  because 
they  are  true,  they  prove  the  theory  which  ascribes  to  this  word 
"a  dipping  and  nothing  but  a  dij)ping,"  to  be  untrue. 


HALLEY    AND    OTHERS.  307 

Another  statement  of  Dr.  Conant  is  both  true  and  important : 
"  The  relation  in  which  Baptizein  was  used  associated  with  it, 
for  the  time  being,  the  ideas  peculiar  to  that  relation."  Thus, 
when  it  was  associated,  in  Classic  Greek,  with  human  beings  and 
water,  it  secured  to  itself  the  idea  of  drowning  ;  when  associated 
with  vnne,  that  of  drunkenness ;  when  associated  b}'  Jews  with 
their  religious  rites,  that  of  ceremonial  purification  ;  and  when 
associated  by  inspired  writers  with  great  doctrinal  truths,  such 
as  £l<;  /leravoiav,  £]<;  a<p£<nv  SfiapTtwv,  dc  A'piffrov,  involving  repent- 
ance and  faith,  pardon  and  salvation,  it  became,  thenceforth,  asso- 
ciated through  the  ages  with  the  ideas  of  spiritual  pueification. 

Halley  and  Others. 

President  Halley  (p.  371)  says:  "The  baptism  was  into 
Moses,  the  syntax  corresponding  with  the  baptism  into  Christ ; 
and  immersion  is  just  as  much  and  as  little  implied  in  the  one 
phrase  as  in  the  other." 

President  Beecher  (p.  112)  says:  "Baptism  into  Moses 
neither  denotes  Christian  baptism  nor  external  baptism.  The 
children  of  Israel  were  delivered  from  Pharaoh  and  united  to 
Moses  as  a  Leader  and  Saviour,  by  the  cloud  and  the  sea.  Moses 
was  a  type  of  Christ,  therefore,  the  name  of  the  antitype  is 
thrown  back  upou  this  transaction  and  it  is  called  a  baptism  into 
Moses." 

A  more  comprehensive  reason  for  the  use  of  fia-nTi%w  to  express 
the  relation  of  Israel  to  Moses,  and  one  which  includes  its  use  in 
expressing  the  relation  of  his  people  to  Christ,  as  well  as  every 
other  case  of  like  syntactical  use,  whether  in  the  Scriptures  or 
out  of  the  Scriptures,  is  this,  namely,  the  fitness  of  this  word  to 
express  the  communication  of  the  characteristics  of  its  comple- 
mentary word  in  pervading  and  controlling  influence,  to  the 
object  of  the  baptism,  whatever  that  may  be. 

This  element  of  interpretation  expounds  every  case  of  this 
usage  (inspired  or  uninspired)  as  satisfactorily  as  it  does  exhaus- 
tively. 

Bishop  Pearce  (Commentary)  saj-s :  "  They  were  baptized 
(not  unto  Moses,  as  our  English  version  has  it,  but)  into  Moses, 
i.e.,  into  that  covenant  and  into  those  laws  which  Moses  delivered 
to  them  from  God." 

Archbishop  Newcome  says :  "  They  were  figuratively  and  typi- 


308  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

cally  baptized ;  the^'  were  led  to  acknowledge  the  divine  mission 
of  Moses  through  those  miracles,  expressive  of  baptism." 

The  Hebrew  of  Moses  and  the  Greek  of  Paul. 

The  statement  by  Paul,  "  All  our  fathers  were  baptized  into 
Moses  by  the  cloud  and  by  the  sea  "  is  evidently  the  statement 
of  a  result  effected  through  the  cloud  and  the  sea.  Moses,  also, 
makes  a  statement  of  the  result  of  this  divine  interposition 
through  these  great  agencies.  His  language  (Exod.  14:31)  is 
this:  "And  Israel  saw  that  great  work  which  the  Lord  did  upon 
the  Egyptians :  and  the  people  feared  the  Lord,  and  believed  the 
Lord,  and  his  servant  Moses." 

Are  these  summings  up  by  Moses  and  Paul  related  to  each 
other?  Are  they  related  to  each  other  as  purposed  statements 
of  the  final  issue  of  the  same  facts?  If  so,  do  their  statements 
accord  with  each  other  ? 

We  take  the  affirmative  of  these  questions  and  say,  that  Moses 
in  Exod.  14:31,  and  Paul  in  Corinthians  10:2,  refer  to  the  same 
Tacts,  state  the  result  of  those  facts,  and  that  the  result  stated,  in 
both  cases,  is  the  same  under  diversity  of  words. 

The  Hebrew  word  ip^5  in  the  passage  (Exod.  14  :  31)  just  quoted, 
is  translated  "  believed,"  and  is  defined  by  Gesenius  as  follows : 
to  prop,  to  stay,  to  support — to  lean  upon,  to  build  ujjon,  to  stand 
firm — to  trust — to  confide  in,  to  believe. 

These  last,  to  trust,  to  confide  in,  to  believe,  are  secondary  mean- 
ings derived  from  the  primary  and  literal  meanings,  to  p)rop,  to 
stay,  to  support.  So,  to  influence  controllingly,  to  make  thor- 
oughly subject  to  any  influence,  penetrating,  pervading  and 
assimilating  in  its  nature,  to  change  condition  completelj'  hy  such 
influence  without  envelopment,  are  secondary  meanings  of  /SaTr- 
Ti^io  derived  from  the  primary  and  literal  meaning  to  merse  ;  to 
intuspose  within  any  element  without  limitation  of  time. 

Now,  this  Hebrew  word  evidently  teaches  us,  that  the  Israelites 
having  been  wavering,  unstable,  and  unreliable  in  their  relations 
to  Moses,  were  made  (as  a  result  of  the  miracles  which  they  had 
witnessed)  to  trust,  to  cor  fide  in,  to  believe  upon  him,  with  a  con- 
fidence second  only  to  that  cherished  toward  Jehovah  himself, 
whose  minister  and  representative  they  now  fully  believe  him  to 
be.  In  other  words  we  are  taught  that  the  moral  condition  and 
relation  of  Israel  toward  xMoses  is  radically  changed,  so  that  his 
influence  over  them  is  thoroughly  controlling. 


THE    HEBREW    OF    MOSES    AND    THE    GREEK    OF    PAUL.      309 

What,  now,  does  the  Greek  word  teach  us  ?  Clearly  this :  the 
Israelites  having  been  out  of  Moses  through  unbelief  in  his  mis- 
sion and  thus  beyond  the  control  of  his  influence,  they  are  (by 
the  stupendous  miracles  wrought  b}"^  Jehovah  in  attestation  of 
that  mission)  thoroughly  convinced  of  its  divine  origin  and  author- 
itj'  and  submit  themselves  to  it,  passing  from  their  outstanding 
position  "wito  Moses,"  so  coming,  in  the  most  strongly  expressed 
terms,  under  his  thoroughly  controlling  influence. 

And  between  these  diversely  originating  conceptions — firmly 
standing  by  an4  thoroughly  obedient  to  a  man  through  profound 
conviction  of  his  divine  mission,  and,  entering  into  a  man  so  as 
to  be  pervaded  by,  subjected  to,  and  animated  with  his  spirit — 
what  is  the  difference  ? 

The  Greek  word  is  not  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  word  ;  but 
the  same  independent  Spirit,  which  spake  alike  through  Moses 
and  through  Paul,  has  presented  the  same  substantial  truth  finder 
phrases  widely  diverse  in  their  origin  and  iu  their  individual  sig- 
nificance. Which  is  the  more  impressive  form  of  statement  none 
will  care  to  inquire  while  both  equally  vindicate  the  truth  and  the 
riches  of  wisdom  flowing  through  all  the  utterances  of  "  holy  men 
of  old  who  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

This  parallelism  of  sentiment,  developed  under  diversity  of  ex- 
pression, is  too  remarkably  related  to  another  fact  related  to  this 
Inquir}^,  not  to  be  reminded  of  it.  I  refer  to  the  fact  that  the 
Syriac  translation  of  the  New  Testament  (one  of  the  earliest  and 
best)  uniformly  translates  [ianri'^a)  by  a  word  which  is  closely  re- 
lated (in  general  significance)  to  the  Hebrew  word  used  by  Moses, 
and  is  represented  with  great  fidelity  by  the  Hebrew  "i?^.  This 
last  word  is  thus  defined  by  Gesenius  :  to  stand,  to  stand  by  or  for 
any  person,  to  stand  firm,  to  stand  to  it,  to  stand  uj),  to  make  stand, 
to  establish.  Dr.  Murdoch,  the  translator  of  the  Sja-iac  New  Tes- 
tament, says,  "  that  the  Syriac  word  used  for  Baptism  properly 
signifies  to  stand  up,  to  stand  firm,  to  stand  erect  and  stable,  like 
pillars^  It  is  obvious  that  between  this  Syriac  word  which  is 
always  used  for  (ianTi^u)  (and  meaning  to  stand  up,  to  stand  firm) 
and  the  Hebrew  word  in  Exod.  14  :  31  (meaning  to  prop,  to  stand 
firm)  for  which  Paul  substitutes  ISanTi^io,  there  is  a  common  ele- 
ment which  would  well  allow  their  common  use  to  express  the 
same  or  an  equivalent  thought.  And  herein  may  be  the  explana- 
tion of  that  deeply  interesting  fact  in  the  Syriac  translation. 
This  point  will  receive  farther  attention  hereafter. 


310  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

By  the  language  of  Moses,  and  by  every  other  consideration, 
the  conclusion  is  established,  that  the  baptism  of  Israel  into  Moses 
expresses  their  full  subjection  to  his  controlling  influence. 


BAPTISM   INTO   PAUL   REJECTS    CHRIST    CRUCIFIED    FOR   US. 

1  Corinthians  1  :  13,  15. 

Eif  TO  ovo/ua  Ilav?.ov  kjia'KTiadrjTe  ; 
°Iva  firi  TiQ  elTTTj  otl  eif  rb  k/ibv  bvofia  i^aTZTiaa, 

"  Were  ye  baptized  into  the  name  of  Paul  ? 

"  Lest  any  one  should  say  that  I  had  baptized  into  my  own  name.'' 

Translation. 

Pryfessor  Schaff  (Revision  of  N.  T.,  p.  xxxi)  says  :  Matt.  28  : 
19  "  baptizing  in  the  name,"  is  an  error  of  translation.     So,  also, 

1  Cor.  1  :  13  "in  the  name  of  Paul;"  and  Acts  8  :  16  "in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus;"  also.  Acts  19:5  "  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  This  error  arises  from  the  translation 
of  the  Vulgate  "  in  nomine."  Tertullian  had  it  correctly  "  in 
nonien.^^     In  other  passages,  viz.,  Rom.  6  :  3,  4  into;  1  Cor.  10  : 

2  unto;  1  Cor.  12  :  13  intq ;  Gal.  3  :  27  into;  Acts  19  :  3  unto. 

A  fuller  investigation  will,  I  think,  result  in  making  the  trans- 
lation of /3a-r£jw  £!?  (in  all  cases  where  the  preposition  points  to 
the  complement  of  the  verb)  uniformly  "baptized  in^o."  Neither 
the  demands  of  the  verb  nor  the  signiflcance  of  the  phrase  can  be 
reached  in  any  other  way. 

The  doctrine  of  Bloomfield  (Ephes.  3  :  19),  "£/?  is  put  for  ^i^ 
than  which  nothing  is  more  frequent  in  Scripture,"  once  quite 
prevalent,  is  now  generally  abandoned.  "  It  is  altogether  im- 
probable that  in  clearly  conceived  doctrinal  statements,  the  Apos- 
tles would  have  employed  iv  for  ££<r  or  £k  for  iv,  so  as  to  perplex 
the  reader  "  (  Winer,  p.  417).  This  point  is  of  special  importance 
on  the  subject  of  New  Testament  baptism,  in  treating  of  which 
these  prepositions  are  almost  exclusively  used  by  the  inspired 
writers,  and  always  used  with  the  most  persistent  discrimination; 
ei<;  pointing  out  invariably  the  receiving  element  (in  the  New  Tes- 
tament always  ideal)  into  which  the  baptized  object  (verbally) 
passes ;  and  iv  as  invariably  (when  used  at  all)  pointing  out  the 
means  (efficient  or  symbol)  by  which  such  baptism  is  eflfected. 


BAPTISM    INTO    MENANPER;    INTO    DONATUS.  311 

Mark  1  :  9  is  no  exception  to  the  former  statement ;  because  tlie 
eiq  of  tliat  passage  is  due  to  -^X6ev  and  not  to  Ifdanriadrj ;  nor  is  Acts 
10  :  48  an  exception  to  the  second  statement;  the  iv  which  there 
occurs  is  related  to  rcpoqira^i  and  not  to  fianTCffOT^vac.  I  know  of 
no  other  cases  which  have  even  the  appearance  of  exception. 

The  statement  of  this  passage,  then,  by  the  force  of  its  terms, 
is,  "  Were  ye  baptized  into  (he  name  of  Paul?"  "  Lest  any  one 
should  say,  that  I  had  baptized  into  my  own  name  ;"  and  any  ex- 
position which  would  convert  these  statements  into  a  di2:iping  into 
WATER  would  establish  an  expository  model  such  as  has  not  been 
since  exegesis  had  its  birih. 

Exposition. 

The  force  of  this  phrase,  "  Baptized  into  the  name  of  Paul,"  is 
precisely  the  same  (so  far  as  ^aTzri^o)  d'z  is  concerned)  as  in  every 
other  like  phrase  ;  the  difference  of  value  in  such  phrases  depend- 
ing always  and  only  upon  the  word  which  is  complementary  of 
the  idea  of  the  verb.  If  we  take  bunches  of  cotton  and  put  them 
severally  into  water  and  oil  and  ink  (black,  red,  green,  or  blue), 
what  constitutes  the  difference  of  value  in  these  phrases  ?  Is  it 
rot  just  the  difference  which  exists  between  water .^  oil,  and  ink  ? 
And  is  not  this  difference  revealed  in  the  different  effect  produced 
upon  the  several  bunches  of  cotton,  the  one  made  wet,  another 
made  greasy,  and  others  made  black,  or  red,  or  green,  or  blue  ? 
In  precisely  the  same  manner  is  indicated  the  difference  between 
the  phrases  baptized  into  sleep,  into  insensibility,  into  repentance, 
into  remission  of  sins,  into  Moses,  into  Paul,  into  Christ.  "  Bap- 
tized into  "  is  common  to  them  all,  and  has  precisely  the  same 
force  in  all.  The  differentiae  are  sleep,  insensibility,  repentance, 
remission  of  sins,  Moses,  Paul,  and  Christ.  And  just  as  these 
differ  from  each  other,  and  just  as  their  controlling  power  over 
the  objects  submitted  to  the  full  influence  of  their  distinguishing 
characteristics  differ  from  each  other,  just  so  much,  no  more  no 
less,  do  these  baptisms  differ  from  each  other. 

Baptism  into  Menander ;  into  Donatus. 

Irenseus  (673)  says  that  the  impostor  Menander,  successor  to 
Simon  the  Magician,  represented  the  benefits  flowing  from  the 
acceptance  of  his  teachings  as  a  baptism  into  himself:  "  Resur- 
rectionem  enim  per  id,  quod  est  in  eum  baptisma,  accipere  ejus 


312  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

discipulos,  et  ultra  non  posse  mori,  sed  perseverare  non  senes- 
centes  et  immortales — For  by  that  baptism  which  is  into  him, 
his  disciples  would  receive  the  Resurrection  so  that  they  could 
not  die,  but  would  live  without  growing  old  and  immortal." 

Augustine  (IX,  381)  charges  Petilian  and  his  ft'iends  with  bap- 
tizing into  Donatus  (in  Donati  aut  in  nostro  nomine  baptizati 
sumus)  ;  not  because  the}'  used  such  formula  of  words,  but  be- 
cause they  came  so  thoroughly  under  his  controlling  influence 
that  they  adhered  to  him  and  his  errors,  abandoning  the  truth 
and  the  church. 

Origen  (IV,  276)  says  :  "All  Israel  was  baptized  into  Joshua 
by  the  miraculous  passage  of  the  Jordan.  Paul  might  say  of 
this,  I  do  not  wish  3'ou,  brethren,  to  be  ignorant  that  all  our  fathers 
passed  through  the  Jordan  {l^id  roT>  Uopddvtiu)  and  all  were  baptized 
into  Joshua  {eiq  '"Ir^aouv)  by  the  Spirit  and  the  river  {Iv  zoj  IhehnaTt 
xai  TTora/jM).^^  And  in  this  statement  we  have  conclusive  proof 
that  the  Red  Sea  baptism  was  into  Moses  and  by  the  cloud  and 
sea,  and  not  "  a  dry  dip,"  since  here  there  is  no  chance  of  a  dry 
dip  between  water  walls  and  cloud  roof.  But  if  this  was  a  bap- 
tism of  "  all  Israel  into  Joshua,"  by  the  Spirit  and  the  miraculously 
arrested  flowing  of  the  river,  then  the  other  was  a  baptism  into 
Moses  b}'  the  power  of  Jehovah  exerted  through  "  the  cloud  and 
the  sea."  Moses  and  Joshua  were  divinely  appointed  leaders  of 
Israel ;  each  was,  in  his  i^eculiarity,  a  type  of  Christ,  and  the 
thorough  submission  of  Israel  to  their  leadership  and  influence, 
induced  by  the  miraculous  intervention  of  Jehovah,  is  described 
by  Paul  in  the  one  case,  and  b}'  Origen  in  the  other,  as  a  baptism 
into  MosES,  and  a  baptism  into  Joshua. 

Menander,  Donatus,  and  Paul,  were  all  teachers  (although  of 
widely  diverse  doctrine),  and  the  reception  of  them  as  leaders  and 
teachers,  above  all  others,  is  described  as  being  baptized  into 
Menander^  Donatus^  and  Paul. 

Ambrose  (IY,  187)  says:  '•'•'•  Aut  in  nominine  Pauli  bajytizati 
estisV  If  believing  (in  Christum  baptizamur)  we  are  baptized 
into  Christ,  that  (in  nomine  ejus  justificemur)  we  may  be  justified 
by  his  name,  why  is  it  that  we  make  men  the  authors  of  this 
faith  V  Ambrose  teaches  clearl}'^  that  it  is  baptism  "  into  Christ " 
which  gives  a  right  to  his  name,  and  to  the  righteousness  which 
comes  through  that  name,  and  not  by  a  dipping  yito  water ;  and 
also  tiiat  a  baptism  into  Paul,  or  into  Cephas,  or  into  Apollos, 
would  make  these  men  "  the  authors  "  of  our  hopes. 


TO    BAPTIZE  —  TO    FILL.  313 

He  farther  says  (v.  13,  Comm.) :  "  The  Corinthians  began 
(subjici)  to  be  made  subject  to  tlie  names  of  different  heretics, 
so  that  men  were  seen  to  be  venerated  in  the  stead  of  Christ." 
Ambrose  here  uses  "  subjici  "  as  a  substitute  for,  and  the  equiva- 
lent (measurably)  of  iSanri^w  ei^,  as  expressing  subjection  =  under 
controlling  influence.  Sub-jacio  to  lie  under,  to  be  subject  to,  and 
divers  other  forms  of  speech,  as  well  as  "  baptized  into,"  readily 
develop  in  forms  of  expression  denoting  controlling  injluence. 

Analogous  Figure. 

While  the  Greek  very  frequently  uses  /Jarrt'^w  to  express  the 
controlling  influence  of  one  thing  over  another  thing  by  the  com- 
munication to  it  of  its  qualit}'  (on  the  basis  of  a  porous  substance 
put  within  a  fluid  having  some  distinguishing  quality,  and  com- 
municating that  quality  by  penetrating  and  pervading  such  sub- 
stance), it  is  nof  common  to  express  by  this  word  the  controlling 
influence  of  one  person  over  another  person  by  a  verbal  form  sug- 
gestive of  a  like  source  of  influence.  There  is  no  reason  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  why  such  statement  should  not  be  made ;  but 
the  form  of  statement  has  remarkable  boldness,  while  it  has,  also, 
an  exhaustive  power  of  expression.  It  appears  for  the  first  time 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  is  there  first  applied  to  the  return  of 
a  revolted  world  to  subjection  and  allegiance  to  the  living  God, 
which  is  expressed  as  a  baptism  "  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  is  afterward  applied 
to  sinners,  guilty  and  perishing,  as  made  pai'takers  of  remitted 
sin  and  a  regenerated  nature  through  Christ,  stated  as  a  baptism 
^Hnto  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  We  have,  also,  the  baptism 
of  Israel  into  Moses  as  a  t3^pe  of  Christ.  "Sye  have,  also,  the 
statement  of  a  baptism  "into  the  name  of  Paul,"  in  order  to  show 
and  to  express  with  the  deepest  condemnation  the  sin  of  the 
Corinthians  in  faltering  in  that  sole  and  supreme  dependence 
which  was  due  to  Christ. 

While  this  form  of  speech  is  pre-eminent  for  boldness  of  con- 
ception, and  capability  for  giving  expression  to  the  profoundest 
thought,  the  same  general  idea  of  controlling  influence  is  expressed 
by  other  forms  of  speech  originating  in  a  dilSerent  class  of  facts 
Among  these  is  the  statement  of  complete  influence  grounded  in 
the  filling  a  vessel  to  its  utmost  capacit}'':  "We  will  fill  ourselves 
with  strong  drink "  (Is.  56 :  12)  ;   "I  will  fill  the  inhabitants  with 


314  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

drunkenness  "  (Jer.  13  :  13)  ;  (the  same  as  [^£i3aTtTi/7fiivi>v  u-S  iiid-q^z^ 
baptized  by  drunkenness,  Josephus)  ;  "  full  of  wisdom  ;"  "  full  of 
indignation;"  "full  of  bypocris3^;"  "fullof  subtilty."  The  figure 
is  bolder  when  the  filling,  and  consequent  influences,  is  that  of 
persons.  "If  first  I  be  somewhat  filled  with  you "  (tj/iu)'^  ItrnXTjaOCu) 
(Rom.  15:24).  This  figure  is  so  bold  that  our  translation  has 
modified  it  into  "filled  with  your  company.^''  But  the  same  figure, 
in  a  more  fully  sustained  form,  is  presented  by  Pope,  "  I  am  too 
full  of  you  not  to  overflow  upon  those  I  converse  with."  Here  is 
fulness  and  its  controlling  influence.  "  Why  hath  Satan  filled  thy 
heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost?"  (Acts  5:3.)  "The  best  com- 
mentators seem  agreed  that  '  to  fill  the  heart  of  any  one '  is  a 
Hebrew  form  of  expression  signifying  to  impel,  to  incite,  to  em- 
bolden, to  persuade  any  one  "  (Bloomfield).  "  To  take  2:>ossession 
of;  in}.-^<70-/]v  to  be  Jilted  with,  i.  e.,  to  be  wholly  occupied  with,  to 

BE   WHOLLY    UNDER    THE    INFLUENCE    OF    anything  ;    TrsTr^pw/jLivoix; 

TTopvsta  'filled  with  (r=  wholly  under  the  influence  of)  fornication '  " 
(Rom.  1 :  29)  (Robinson,  Lex.).  Compare  with  r.e-Kl-qpwiiivou^ 
■Kopveia  the  parallel  phrase  dq  -Kop^jzlav  [ianriX.oo(TL  (Clem.  Alex.)  ; 
and  can  any  one  doubt  that  these  phrases  (starting  from  the 
diverse  points  of  fulness  and  withinness)  do  meet  together  in  the 
same  ultimate  conception,  to  wit,  "to  be  wholly  under  the  influence 
of^  fornication?  "To  be  filled  with  fornication,"  and  "to  be 
baptized  into  fornication,"  is  a  diversity  of  form  expressive  of 
unity  in  effect.  Hence  we  have  additional  proof  of  the  correct- 
ness of  the  "  conclusion  "  in  Classic  Baptism,  that  the  secondary 
use  of  [ia-ri'tw  expresses  to  be  wholly  under  the  influence  of  any- 
thing, which  conclusion  was  established  in  Judaic  Baptism,  with 
specific  application  to  ceremonial  purification;  and  exemplified 
in  Johannic  Baptism  as  bearing  on  spiritual  purification  ;  and  is 
now  shown  to  be  its  exclusive  use  in  Christian  Baptism  as  related 
to  the  righteousness,  the  atonement,  and  the  reconciliation  of 
Christ,  in  their  bearing  upon  his  redeemed  people:  1.  Really,  by 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  2.  Symbolly,  by  ritual  water.  Satan  is  "  the 
Father  of  lies,"  and  when  he  fills  the  heart  his  influence  is  shown 
by  lies.  "I  have  filled  him  with  the  Spirit  of  God"  (Exod.  31:3); 
"filled  with  the  Spirit"  (Ephes.  5  :  18)  ;  "filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  "  (Acts  4:8);  "  men  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  "  (Acts  6  :  3) 
=:  "  Completely  animated  and  supported  by  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost "  (Bloomfield).  This  figure,  by  which  controlling 
influence  is  expressed  by  fulness,  is  more  common  and  less  im- 


TO    BAPTIZE — TO    FILL.  315 

pressive  than  that  which  is  derived  from  putting  one  thing  within 
another  thing,  especially  one  person  within  another  person  ;  but 
while  differing  in  their  origin,  and  in  shades  of  significance,  as 
well  as  the  measure  of  their  power,  still  they  are  entirely  analo- 
gous as  to  their  general  end,  namely,  giving  expression  to  a  con- 
trolling influence.  When  Peter,  at  Pentecost,  denied  that  he  and 
his  associates  were  "  full  of  new  wine,"  and  thus  under  its  influ- 
ence =  "  drunken,"  declaring  that  he  and  thej-  were  "full  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  being  "  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  according  to 
the  promise  of  the  Saviour  and  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  he  admits 
that  he  and  they  are  under  some  controlliug  influence ;  but  he 
denies  that  it  is  such  as  comes  from  the  fulness  of  wine,  and 
aflflrms  that  it  is  such  as  comes  from  the  fulness^  or  the  baptism, 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  terms,  as  expressive  in  general  of  con- 
trolling influence,  are  entirely  equivalent  expressions. 

And  as  the  verb  to  baptize  has  here  (according  to  universal 
admission)  nothing  to  do  with  effecting  a  baptism  into  water,  so 
it  has  just  as  little  to  do  with  any  such  thing  anywhere  else  in  the 
New  Testament.  A  baptism  "  into  Christ "  has  no  more  to  do 
with  a  baptism  into  water,  than  has  a  heart  "full  of  Satan  "  to  do 
with  a  heart  full  of  water.  A  baptism  "  into  Paul  "  has  no  more 
to  do  with  a  baptism  into  water,  than  Paul's  being  "  filled  with 
his  friends "  at  Rome  has  to  do  with  his  being  filled  with  the 
water  of  the  Tiber.  The  water  in  ritual  baptism  no  more  depends 
for  its  manner  of  use  upon  /Sarrj'^w,  than  does  the  face  depend  for 
its  reflection  from  a  mirror,  upon  that  mirror  being  in  its  form  a 
circle,  an  oblong,  or  a  square.  These  two  things  (,3aKTt!^a)  and 
the  manner  of  using  the  water)  no  more  stand,  in  Scripture,  con- 
joined with  each  other  by  grammatical  or  logical  relation,  than 
do  the  earth  and  the  moon  stand  in  creation  conjoined  by  a  sus- 
pension bridge. 


316  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


BAPTISM  INTO    CHRIST    INVOLVES    THE    ASSURED    HOPE    OP 
RESURRECTION    AND    ETERNAL   LIFE. 

1  Corinthians  15 :  29. 

Ti  ■Koujaovaiv  ol  (iaTrTLL,6fiEvoL  vTrep  ruv  vEKpuv^  el  o/lwf  vEKpoi  ovk  eyeipovrai, 

"  What  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  over  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise 
not  at  all?  why,  then,  are  they  baptized  over  the  dead?" 

The  Baptism. 

The  embarrassment  in  the  interpretation  of  this  passage  does 
not  arise  so  much  from  difficulty  in  determining  the  nature  of  the 
baptism,  as  in  determining  the  nature  of  the  relation  between  the 
baptism  and  rcLv  vexpwv. 

There  is  no  reason,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  for  referring  this 
baptism  to  that  which  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  is 
no  aspect  in  which  such  baptism  brings  into  relation  with  "  the 
dead." 

There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  identif3'ing  this  baptism  with 
the  baptism  of  "suffering."  Such  baptism  has  no  place  in  the 
New  Testament  except  in  connection  with  the  atoning  sufferings 
of  Christ.  There  is,  indeed,  mention  of  suffering  in  the  context, 
but  not  so  as  to  identify  it  with  this  baptism. 

We  must  accept  it  as  referring  to  ritual  baptism  received  in  a 
time  of  persecution,  when,  as  stated  in  the  immediately  succeed- 
ing verse,  the  life  of  an  avowed  Christian  was  "  in  jeopardy  every 
hour." 

'Tnip  Twv  vsxpuJv. 

The  precise  relation  between  this  baptism  and  "  the  dead " 
ma}^  be  due  to  some  local  historical  fact,  not  fully  stated  and 
which  ma}',  now,  be  forever  beyond  our  reach.  The  form  of  the 
phraseology  fianzi^u)  unkp  does  not  originate  in  the  verb  and  must 
be  due  to  some  cause  independent  of  it. 

The  burden  of  the  context,  preceding  and  succeeding,  is  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  and  eternal  life. through  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  as  assured  doctrines  of  Christianit}';  in  immediate  con- 
tact with  this  baptism  unsp  vsxpCov  we  have  a  statement  that  Chris- 
tians are  hourly  in  peril  of  death  ;  and  the  last  verse  of  the 
chapter  exhorts  to  steadfastness  and  unmovableness  amid  en- 
compassing dangers.     While  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  de- 


'^Ynep  TuJv  vexpojv.  317 

velops  a  great  and  universal  truth  of  Christianity,  still,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  it  has  a  local  coloring  from  facts  then  existing  at 
Corinth.  And  our  interpretation  of  the  language  so  far  as  it  is 
due  to  those  facts  cannot  be  more  certain  than  is  our  knowledge 
of  those  facts.  I  have  no  certain,  detailed  knowledge  of  them 
and  can,  therefore,  oifer  no  certain  interpretation.  So  far  as  the 
facts  appear  to  be  known  they  seem  to  justify  an  interpretation 
like  this:  1.  unkp  tu>v  vtxp&v  over  the  dead;  Why  are  Christians 
baptized  into  Christ,  who  teaches  that  trials  and  martyrdom 
await  his  disciples,  and  who  have  the  dead  of  all  generations 
buried  beneath  their  feet  declaring  the  end  of  man  in  this  world, 
unless  they  believe  and  have  conclusive  evidence  of  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead  and  of  a  blessed  immortality  through  Christ  ? 

The  assumption  of  the  badge  of  Christianity  which  exposes 
"  every  hour"  to  death  reveals  a  faith  in  a  resurrection  which  out- 
weighs all  appeal  to  "  the  dead  "  as  evidence  against  it ;  or, 

2.  rcbv  vexpihv  "  the  dead  ;"  may  refer  definitely  to  some  Christians 
who  had  been  slain  at  Corinth,  and  immediatel}^  thereupon  others 
had  been  baptized,  if  not  literally  over,  yet  so  as  to  justify  the 
statement  that  their  baptism  was  "  over  the  dead"  martyrs. 

All  so  baptized  could  only  expect  to  be  slain  in  like  manner ; 
therefore  the  fitness  of  the  inquiry,  "What  shall  such  do,  if  there 
be  no  resurrection  ?"  or, 

3.  If  such  interpretation  should  be  thought  questionable  on  the 
ground  of  (a  generally  admitted)  exclusive  metaphorical  use  of 
vTzep  in  the  New  Testament,  then,  it  may  be  understood  as  mean- 
ing /or,  in  the  stead  of,  "  the  dead  "  slain  before  their  eyes,  or, 
day  by  day,  far  and  wide,  because  they  were  Christians. 

To  join  the  band  of  Christians  at  such  a  time  by  baptism,  was 
to  step  into  the  place  of  newly  fallen  martyrs  and  to  confi'ont 
that  death  which  they  had  met. 

Such  action  might  well  elicit  the  inquiry.  Why  do  men  thus 
give  themselves  to  death,  filling  up  the  places  of  the  slain,  unless 
they  believe  and  do  know  that  in  that  Christ,  into  whom  they  are 
baptized,  they  shall  have  a  resurrection  from  the  dead  ? 

Again  repeating,  that  so  far  as  the  baptism  is  concerned,  there 
is  no  special  diflSculty ;  but  so  far  as  the  relation  of  the  baptism 
to  "the  dead"  is  concerned  there  is  difficulty,  because  of  the  want 
of  definite  historical  knowledge ;  I  offer  these  interpretations  as 
what  may  be  in  the  direction  of  and  proximate  to  the  truth. 


318  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


BAPTISM   INTO    CHRIST   INCLUDES    AND    CREATES   UNITY   AMONG 
ALL    SO   BAPTIZED. 

1  Corinthians  12 :  13. 

'Ev  Evl  Uvev/j-ari  y/ie'ig  TravTcg  etc  iv  ao>na  kfiaTTTladrjtiEV, 
"  By  one  Spirit  have  we  all  been  baptized  into  one  body." 

Translation. 

'£v  bA  Hveoimri.  By  one  Spirit  is  accepted  as  the  translation 
of  tliis  phrase  by  parties  of  diverse  views  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism. Not  only  does  Dr.  Carson  accept  the  common  English 
Yersion,  but  the  Baptist  Version,  and  the  Christian  (Campbellite) 
Baptist  Version  (by  Anderson)  ;  it  is  also  accepted  by  Alexander 
Campbell,  himself;  Luther  in  his  Version  translates  by  durch; 
Murdoch's  Version  from  the  Syriac  has  "  hy  one  Spirit ;"  Com- 
mentators and  Scholars,  generally,  agree  in  this  translation.  It 
is  not  merely  in  this  passage  that  iv  IhevfiaTt  is  translated  "  hy 
the  Spirit,"  but  this  accord  extends  to  v.  3  where  it  appears  twice, 
"  speaking  {h)  by  the  Spirit  of  God,"  "  can  say  (iv)  by  the  Holy 
Ghost ;"  also,  v.  9,  twice,  "  to  another  (ii-)  by  the  same  Spirit ;" 
thus,  in  one  chapter,  we  have  that  phrase  which  the  friends  of 
dipping  in  baptism  have  insisted  upon  being  translated  as  the 
receiving  element,  and  refused  to  regard  as  indicative  of  agency, 
acknowledged  to  be  used  five  times  instrumentally ;  and  this 
when  appearing  in  its  accustomed  relation  to  baptism. 

It  is  obvious  that  such  concession  bears  weightily  not  to  say 
controlling!}^,  on  the  translation  and  interpretation  of  this  same 
phrase  in  relation  to  the  same  subject,  elsewhere. 

It  cannot  be  said,  that  a  difference  is  determined  here  by  the 
use  of  dia  and  xazd,  in  connection  with  iv,  communicating  to  it 
their  distinctive  meanings.  For  each  preposition  retains  its  own 
peculiarity  while  uniting  in  a  common  issue  to  which  each  com- 
municates its  own  specialty  of  coloring.  Therefore  Winer  (p. 
419)  says,  "In  the  parallel  clauses  in  1  Cor.  12:8,  9,  spiritual 
gifts  are  referred,  by  the  use  of  <5:«,  x«ra,  tv,  to  the  llvsoim  from 
which  tliey  all  originate  :  <5£«,  designates  the  Spirit  as  mediate 
agent;   zard,  as  disposer;    ^i^,  as  container."     Thus   while   each 


THE    GROUND    OF    THE    USE    OF    ^v   Tlveuimrt   IN    BAPTISM.     319 

word  has  its  own  distinctive  significance,  all  unite  in  indicating 
the  UvBu/ia  as  possessing  influential  power,  and  thus  lay  a  basis 
for  the  translation  "by"  as  common  to  them  all.  Therefore 
Winer  (p.  389)  says,  "When  h  and  did  are  joined  together  in  the 
same  sentence,  Scd  expresses  the  external  means,  while  iv  points 
to  what  was  wrought  in  or  07i  one's  person,  and  as  it  were  cleaves 
to  him.  .  .  ,  Such  passages  show  that  both  prepositions  are 
identical  as  respects  the  sense.''^ 

Hie  Ground  of  the  use  of  hv  UveufLaTt  in  Baptism. 

It  is  admitted  that  h  in  Uvebp-an  in  this  passage,  is  indicative 
of  agenc}^  (as  truly  as  5ta,  or  y.a-d)  and  at  the  same  time  indicating 
such  agency  as  originates  in  ivithinness.  This  aspect  of  agenc}'' 
or  influence  is  profoundl}'  characteristic  of  the  New  Testament, 
especially'  of  that  which  is  divine  in  its  character.  It  is  in  this 
aspect  that  the  II0I3'  Spirit  alwaj'^s  appears  as  the  Agent  in  bap- 
tism. While  Christ  is  declared  to  be  the  Baptizer  he  is  declared 
so  to  be  on  the  ground  that  he,  himself,  is  "in  the  Holy  Spirit," 
and  thus  invested  with  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  does  baptize  by 
the  Spirit.  John's  prophetic  announcement  (Matt.  3:11)  that 
"  He  should  be  iv  IJveup.aTi  'Ayiio  in  (  =  invested  with  the  power 
of)  the  Holy  Ghost,"  was  verified  when  (v.  16)  the  Spirit  of  God 
descended  upon  him ;  and  John  was  able  to  verifj'  his  own 
prophecy:  "And  John  bare  record,  saying,  I  saw  the  Spirit  de- 
scending from  heaven,  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him.  He 
that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me,  Upon 
whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  remaining  on  him, 
the  same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Hoi}''  Ghost  "  (Joiin  1  :  32, 
33).  To  convert  this  statement  into  a  declaration,  that  Christ 
should  baptize  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  is,  as  we  are  told,  should 
on  two  occasions  (at  Pentecost  and  Csesarea)  confer  certain 
miraculous  endowments,  is  as  vapid  and  incredible  in  itself,  as  it 
is  opposed  to  the  whole  course  of  Scripture  prophecy,  history, 
and  forms  of  language. 

The  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  any  one  (in  Old  Testament 
or  New  Testament)  is  invariably  to  confer  some  gift  and  to  qualify 
for  some  duty.  It  was  so  in  this  case.  And  from  this  moment, 
and  in  all  his  utterances  and  acts  even  until  "  he  {did  Ihsu/mTnq 
aitovioi;)  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to 
God  "  on  the  Cross,  he  was  ever  "in  the  Holy  Ghost."    That  this 


320  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

descent  was  personal  to  Christ,  and  the  prophetic  anointing  for 
his  work  (Is.  61:1)  is  evident  from  the  declaration  of  John, 
"  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  b}^  measure  unto  him  "  (John  3  :  34), 
and  from  his  own  declaration  (Luke  4;  18),  "The  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  is  upon  me ;"  also,  from  the  declaration  immediately  after 
the  descent  of  the  Spirit  (Matt.  4  :  1),  "  Then  was  Jesus  led  up 
(t3-o)  by  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness  ;"  also  (Luke  4  :  14),  "And 
Jesus  returned  from  the  wilderness  (iv)  in  the  power  of  the 
Spirit;"  and,  again,  from  his  own  declaration  (Matt.  12:  28),  "If 
I  (iv)  in  the  Spirit  of  God,  cast  out  devils;"  if,  now,  to  this  be 
added  the  historical  narrative  of  the  execution  of  this  baptism  in 
that  case  related  in  Acts  2  :  33,  "  Having  received  of  the  Father 
the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye 
now  see/ind  hear,"  the  proof  is  absolute,  that  i'.^  ruj  Ihsu;j.arc  re- 
lates to  the  personal  condition  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  qualifying 
Him  to  baptize  others  by  the  Holy  Ghost  imparted  unto  them. 

All  of  which  is  grammatically  confirmed  by  the  presence  (actual 
or  by  ellipsis)  of  both  ^v  and  eiq  in  New  Testament  baptisms ; 
under  which  circumstances  no  example  can  be  found  in  which  ^v 
indicates  the  complement  of  ftunrd^u) ;  nor  yet  when  it  stands  alone, 
fulfilling  this  office  with  the  active  form  of  the  verb. 

The  ground  of  the  use  of  Iv  ru>  Ilvevp-an  (as  also  of  iv  Xptaru}  in 
Christ)  "zVi  the  Spirit,"  is  the  influence  inseparable  from  within- 
ness,  where  one  thing  is  enveloped  in  another  thing.  Generally  it 
is  the  inclosing  substance  that  influences  the  inclosed  ;  some- 
times it  is  the  reverse,  as  where  "  a  little  leaven  is  hid  in  three 
measures  of  meal."  Both  forms  of  influence  are  freely  used  in 
Scripture,  Christians  are  said  to  be  in  Christ  and  Christ  in 
them ;  "  There  is  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  (iv)  in  Christ 
Jesua^^  (Rom.  8:1);"  Christ  (iv)  in  you  the  hope  of  glory."  So,  it 
is  said  of  the  Spirit;  "  If  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you  "  (Rom. 
8  :  9),  "  For  David  said  {iv  tw  Ilvso/iart  zai  "Ayiw)  in  the  Holy  Ghost  ^^ 
(Mark  12  :  36).  This  withinness  is  for  the  sake  of  influence.  "  If 
the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead  dwell  in  you^ 
he  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  shall  quicken,  also,  your 
mortal  bodies  {^la)  by  his  Spirit  that  divellelh  in  you." 

There  are  some  who  prefer  translating  "  For  in  one  Spirit  are 
we  all  baptized  into  one  body."  This  is  not  objectionable  so  long 
as  iv  is  regarded  as  pointing  out  the  origin  and  thus  indicating 
the  baptizing  power ;  but  if  it  should  be  used  to  indicate  (against 
£(>)  the  ideal  element  of  the  baptism,  it  must  be  rejected.         ' 


DR.   PUSEY.  321 


Interpretation. 

Dr.  Pusey  (p.  166)  says :  "  'For  in  one  Spirit  were  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  bod}^,'  showing  that  to  be  baptized  into  Christ  is  to 
be  baptized  in  the  One  Spirit ;  and  neither  is  the  baptism  of 
Christ  without  the  Spirit,  nor  is  there  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
without  the  baptism  instituted  by  Christ.  .  .  .  There  is  no  dis- 
tinction, as  if  some  were  baptized  into  'the  outward  body  of  pro- 
fessing believers,'  as  men  speak,  others  into  the  invisible  and 
mystical  body  of  Christ,  the  true  Church ;  some  baptized  with 
water,  others  with  the  Spirit ;  we  were  aZZ,  St.  Paul  says,  '  baptized 
into  one  body  in  One  Spirit ;'  so  then,  if  any  had  not  been  bap- 
tized in  the  One  Spirit,  neither  would  they  have  been  of  the  one 
body." 

Dr.  Pusey  employs  the  phrase,  "  the  baptism  of  Christ "  to 
denote  ritual  baptism  with  water.  This  is  unscriptural.  "  The 
baptism  of  Christ"  can,  scripturally,  denote  nothing  but  that 
baptism  which  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  administra- 
tion of  which  is  limited  to  Christ — "  He  that  cometh  after  me  is 
mightier  than  I,  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  The 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  especially  declared  in  Scripture  never  to 
have  baptized  with  water.  It  was  wholly  foreign  from  his  char- 
acter to  act  through  shadows  and  symbols.  His  acts  and  his 
gifts  were  realities.  The  ritual  use  of  water  was  but  a  symbol  of 
the  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  So  John  declares  by  the  great 
gulf  b}'  which  he  separates  them ;  and  so  Christ  declares  by  re- 
serving to  himself  the  one  and  committing  to  his  disciples  the 
other.  But  these  Dr.  Pusey  confounds ;  while  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  and  the  facts  of  their  administration  prove  them  to  be 
wholly  distinct.  While  Dr.  Pusey  conjoins  what  the  Scriptures 
separate ;  he  separates  what  the  Scriptures  conjoin.  He  divides 
the  baptism  under  consideration  into  two,  by  converting  the 
agency  (^i^  iv\  TlvebiJ-art.)  into  a  distinct  baptism.  There  is  nothing 
said  about  two  baptisms ;  but  "  all  being  in  "  (:=  under  the  influ- 
ence of)  "One  Spirit,  are,"  thereby,  "baptized  into  one  bod3\" 

The  introduction  of  ritual  water  is  without  authority  by  any 
word  of  Scripture,  and  is,  as  much,  without  need  from  the  nature 
of  the  case ;  the  Holy  Spirit  alone  being  entirely  competent  to 
effect  the  baptism  announced  without  any  co-ojjerating  influence 
of  water. 

21 


322  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Carson  says  :  "In  1  Cor.  12  :  13  it  is  taken  for  granted, 
all  who  are  baptized  belong  to  the  bod}^  of  Christ.  They  who  are 
baptized  are  supposed  already  to  belong  to  the  body  of  Christ; 
and  for  this  reason  the}-  are  baptized  into  it.  The}'  are  b}'  bap- 
tism externally  united  to  that  body,  to  which  the}'  are  internally 
united  by  faith.  None  are  here  supposed  to  be  baptized  upon 
the  expectation,  or  probability,  or  possibility,  that  they  may  yet 
belong  to  that  body.     They  are  baptized  into  the  body." 

This  maybe  a  very  good  exposition  of  Dr.  Carson's  theory  of 
adult  baptism  and  of  the  constitution  of  the  church  ;  but  it  can 
hardly  be  called  a  very  good  exposition  or  an  exposition  of  any 
kind,  of  1  Cor.  12:13,  The  idea  that  a  ritual  baptism  is  here 
spoken  of,  not  only  has  not  so  much  as  a  sand  grain  to  rest  upon, 
Ijut  is  in  absolute  contradiction  to  the  express  statement  of  the 
text,  to  wit,  that  the  baptism  is  effected  by  the  Divine  Spirit. 
But  this  most  positive  statement  Dr.  Carson  and  friends  can- 
not accept,  because  they  entertain  that  marvellous  idea  which 
teaches,  that  the  great  characteristic  of  the  Messiah's  coming  and 
kingdom  (baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost)  is  exhausted  by  the  com- 
muui(!ation  of  certain  extraordinary  gifts  on  two  occasions ! 
Therefore  the  clear  statement  of  inspiration,  that  every  soul 
made  a  member  of  the  body  of  Christ  receives  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  must  be  rejected,  and  its  place  supplied  by  a  dipping 
into  water. 

Professor  Pepper  (B.  and  C,  p.  21)  seems  to  admit  that  this 
may  be  spiritual  baptism  ;  also  (p.  28)  that  repentance  may  be 
baptism  of  the  Spirit. 

R.  Ingham  (Christian  Baptism,  London,  p.  7)  says:  "  Through 
the  operation,  under  the  guidance,  and  in  the  possession  of  one 
Spirit,  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body." 

/7avr£C. 

The  Apostle  makes  a  universal  statement  so  far  as  those  are 
concerned  who  do  "  by  the  Holy  Ghost  call  Jesus,  Lord."  All 
such  are  by  v.  3  declared  to  be  "  iv  Ih^ojiaTt  'Aym,  in  =  under  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  use  of  cv  Ihvjimri  'Ayiio  in  v.  3 
appears  to  l)e  the  ground  of  its  use  in  v.  12;  if  ovStiq^  ''''no  one^  can 
call  Jesus,  the  Lord,  except  h  HvsOriart  'Ayiw^"  then  ttavts?,  all  who 
call  him  the  Lord,  are  in  =  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  "  have  been  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  by 


BAPTISM  INTO  ONE  BODY.  323 

this  Divine  Agent.  Now,  it  is  "all"  of  such  individual  persons 
who,  being  iv  thshij.ari  ' Aytio  in  =  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  made  subject  to  the  LoRDship  of  Christ,  and  "  saved  from 
their  sins"  by  Jesus;  in  other  words,  having  been  made  individ- 
ually regenerate  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  are  pre- 
pared to  receive  a  farther  baptism  b}'  the  distribution  of  varied  and 
related  gifts  from  "the  one  and  the  selfsame  Spirit,  who  divideth  to 
every  one  severally  as  He  will."  By  such  gifts  to  all  (the  one  sup- 
plementary of  the  other)  a  unity,  one  interdependent  whole,  is 
established;  and  as  "all"  the  individual  members  are  "  in  "  = 
under  the  influence  of,  controlled  by,  "  one  Spirit,"  they  are  per- 
fected by  varied  endowments  in  their  relations  to  one  another, 
and  in  their  common  relation  to  Christ  their  head,  and  thus  are 
iv.  kv\  f]vsuiJ.aTi  Tjixelq  T:d\'-eq  slq  ev  trcu/ia  ii3a7ZTitT0rj;j.sv. 

This  baptism  of  unification,  by  the  distribution  of  appropriate 
and  varied  gifts  to  every  member  of  the  body  of  Christ,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  baptism  of  regeneration,  which  unites  the 
individual  soul  to  Christ  and  makes  participant  in  his  redemp- 
tion, should  cause  no  surprise;  it  is  as  to  its  nature  and  end 
precisely  that  baptism  which  the  Apostles  received  at  Pentecost. 
The  Apostles  had  before  received  that  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
which  gives  repentance  and  faith  and  a  regenerate  nature ;  they 
now  receive  that  baptism  of  gifts  which  will  fit  them  for  their 
place,  as  Apostles,  in  the  "one  bod}'  of  which  Christ  is  the 
Head." 

As  the  Pentecost  baptism  of  the  Apostles  was  not  the  baptism 
of  iuipenitent  sinners  "  into  Christ,"  but  a  baptism  of  gifts,  con- 
ferred upon  those  who  were  already  iv  Ihebimn^  "  for  the  edifica- 
tion of  the  body  of  Christ,"  so,  also,  the  baptism  announced  to 
the  Corinthians  was  not  a  baptism  for  those  who  (not  being  iv 
Iheuimri  ' Ayiu))  "  call  Jesus  accursed,"  but  a  baptism  of  gifts  to 
all,  even  the  least,  in  the  body  of  Christ,  perfecting  all  in  every 
one. 

This  work  of  double  baptism  (of  the  individual  "  into  Christ," 
and  of  "all  into  one  body")  will  the  Holy  Spirit  carry  on  among 
"  Jews  and  Gentiles,"  until  this  wondrous  work  shall  be  done  by 
the  consummating  baptism  of  the  redeemed  of  all  ages  and  of  all 
nations  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost." 


324  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


BAPTISM    WITH    WATER,    THE    SHADOW    OF    ESSENTIAL    TRUTH,    IS 

WORTHLESS    IN    COMPARISON    WITH    BAPTISM    BY    THE 

HOLY   GHOST,  WHICH   EFFECTS   THAT   TRUTH. 

1    COKINTHIANS    1  :  17. 

Oi)  -yap  aneaTecXE  fie  Xp/aroi  fiaiTTi^Eiv  okTC  Evayye7iiC,£adaL. 
"For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel." 

Interpretation. 

When  Paul  says,  Christ  did  not  send  me  to  baptize  ritually, 
but  to  preach  the  gospel,  through  which  by  the  Holy  Ghost  the 
soul  is  baptized  really,  he  means  to  speak  comparatively,  and  to 
teach:  1.  Ritual  baptism  does  not  enter  as  an  essential  into  the 
gospel ;  2.  Eitual  baptism  is  an  essential  appendage  to  tlie  gospel, 
but  whatever  may  be  its  value,  it  has  no  value  in  comparison  with 
the  gospel;  and  must  be  esteemed  as  subordinate  to, the  gospel. 
So  that,  if  ever  the  gospel  and  its  worth,  should  come  into  antag- 
onism with  the  rite  and  its  worth,  the  gospel  must  be  acknowl- 
edged as  having  an  unapproachable  supremacy  over  the  rite. 
Therefore,  while  the  administration  of  the  rite  was  included  in 
Paul's  commission,  it  occupied  so  subordinate  a  position  (con- 
sequent and  dependent  upon  the  preaching  of  the  gospel)  that  he 
could  most  truthfully  say,  "  My  mission  is  to  preach  the  gospel 
and  not  to  administer  ritual  baptism.  Which  is  only  a  ritual 
exhibition  of  the  spiritual  result  of  the  gospel  as  blessed  by  the 
Holy  Gliost  in  purifying  the  soul  from  sin." 

This  view  of  Paul  concerning  tlie  nature  of  ritual  baptism  and 
its  relations  to  the  gospel  are  not,  b}^  any  means,  the  views  of  all 
others. 

There  are  some  (Patrists  and  others)  who  believe,  that  ritual 
baptism  is  the  agency  by  which  the  soul  is  regenerated,  its  sins 
washed  away,  and  incorporation  is  effected  in  the  spiritual  body 
of  Christ. 

On  what  grounds  these  can  suppose  Paul  to  deny,  that  such 
work  did  lie  within  his  mission,  I  cannot  imagine. 

There  are  others  (Alexander  Campbell  and  friends)  who  be- 
lieve, that  ritual  baptism  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the 
remission  of  sins,  as  does  Repentance  toward  God,  and  faith 
toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


CHRIST    SENT    ME    NOT    TO    BAPTIZE.  325 

Whether  this  class  undertakes  to  separate  remission  of  sins 
from  "  the  gospel,"  or  whether  they  would  say,  Repentance  and 
faith  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  "  the  gospel "  than  has  ritual 
baptism,  and  that  Paul  might  as  properlj'  have  said,  I  was  not 
sent  to  preach  repentance  and  faith,  as  he  said  that  he  was  not 
sent  to  baptize,  I  do  not  know.  Or  if,  when  Repentance  for  sin 
with  its  accessories,  and  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  as  Lord  and  God 
("my  Lord  and  ray  God"),  and  as  Jesus  (Saviour,  by  righteous- 
ness and  atonement),  and  as  Christ  (Anointed,  prophet,  priest, 
and  king),  whether,  when  these  were  eliminated  from  the  gospel, 
they  would  undertake  to  declare  how  much  was  left  of  the  gospel 
for  Paul  to  preach,  I  cannot  tell.  But  if  ritual  baptism  is  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  how  it  happened  that  Paul  should  be  sent  to 
the  Gentile  world  with  a  commission  in  which  "/or  the  remission 
of  sin  "  was  left  out,  must  be  a  marvel. 

There  are  yet  others  (Px-ofs.  Pepper,  Curtis,  and  friends  of  the 
theory  generally)  who  believe,  that  Christian  baptism  is  a  dip- 
ping into  water,  exclusively,  imperatively,  and  divinely  appointed, 
being  ordained  as  the  door  of  the  Church,  the  essential  ante- 
cedent and  prerequisite  to  the  Communion  Table,  the  sirie  qua  non 
to  the  existence  of  a  regular,  true,  and  lawful  chui'ch.  This  dip- 
ping into  water,  we  are  informed,  is  unspeakably  glorious  — 
"  Where  through  the  transparent  drapery,  the  outward  garment 
of  profession,  shines  the  rich  vesture  of  a  living  faith  within,  the 
whole  assumes  a  symbolic  lustre  and  magnificence,  sufficient 
fully  to  justify  the  warmest  eulogium  of  the  Christian.  Not  too 
ecstatic  to  be  applied  to  it  is  the  language  of  the  Prophet  when 
he  says,  '  I  will  greatly  rejoice  in  the  Lord,  my  soul  shall  be  joy- 
ful in  my  God ;  for  he  hath  clothed  me  with  the  garments  of  sal- 
vation, he  hath  covered  me  with  the  robe  of  righteousness,  as  a 
bridegroom  decketh  himself  with  ornaments,  and  as  a  bride 
adorneth  herself  with  her  jewels.'  .  .  .  This  divinely  appointed 
confession  of  Christ"  (dipping  into  water),  "animated  by  a  true 
faith,  is  a  garment  which  well  befits  all  Christians ;  '  it  becomes 
the  crowned  monarch  better  than  his  crown.'  It  can  make  pov- 
erty honorable,  decrepitude  and  old  age  cheerful,  sickness  and 
death  happ3\  It  suits  all  ages  and  gradations  of  intellect.  What 
sight  on  earth  so  beautiful  as  to  behold  the  young  and  lovely 
descending  into  the  waters  of  baptism,  yielding  up  their  hearts 
and  lives  to  the  service  of  the  Saviour,  '  putting  on  Christ.'  .  .  . 
It  is  a  garment  that  never  wears  out ;  but  like  those  shawls  of 


326  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Cashmere  that  retain  their  colors  brilliant  for  successive  genera- 
tions, is  unfading  and  resplendent  to  the  last.  .  .  .  This  garment 
is  the  uniform,  divinely  appointed  for  Christians  upon  earth.  It 
contains  a  significance  and  mystery  that  angels  desire  to  look 
into,  and  that  shall  never  be  unravelled,  until  Time  shall  be  no 
more,  and  unto  all  the  saints  shall  be  granted  everlastingly  to  be 
clothed  in  fine  linen,  clean  and  white"  (Prof.  Curtis,  pp.  69-73). 
Any  one  who  attempts  to  establish  a  church,  or  to  enter  into  the 
church,  or  to  sit  down  at  the  Lord's  table,  except  under  the 
sanction  of  this  dipping  into  water,  is  an  "  ignorant  perverter," 
and  "acts  a  lie,"  unless  he  is  so  "sincere  and  ignorant"  that  he 
"cannot  be  made  to  know"  what  he  is  about  (Prof.  Pepper,  pp. 
34,  46).  Such  "  ecstatic  eulogy  "  (with  its  natural  anathema)  of 
"dipping  into  water,"  outrivals  the  most  glowing  flights  of  a 
Gregory  or  a  Chrysostom.  When  we  turn  to  the  plain  prose  of 
the  Bible  and  hear  Paul  say,  "  I  was  not  sent  to  baptize  ('  to  dip 
into  water')  but  to  preach  the  gospel,"  these  waxen  wings  melt 
and  the  eulogist  above  the  clouds  gets  a  fall.  Paul,  the  Apostle 
to  the  Gentiles  and  the  founder  of  churches,  not  sent  to  open 
"the  door  of  the  church"  or  to  give  a  seat  at  its  Communion 
table,  b}'  "that  only  wa}'" — dipping  into  ivater! 

PauVs  Commission. 

It  is  worth  while  to  look  at  Paul's  commission  for  more  and 
for  more  important  reasons  than  this  statement,  that  he  was  not 
sent  to  baptize  ("to  dip  into  water"). 

This  commission  is  found  in  Acts  26:16-18:  "I  have  ap- 
peared unto  thee  for  this  purpose,  to  make  thee  a  minister  and  a 
witness  .  .  .  delivering  thee  from  the  people  and  (twv  iOvu»^)  the  Gen- 
tiles, unto  whom  now  {antxTxiklu))  I  send  thee,  to  open  their  eyes, 
and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of 
Satan  unto  God,  that  they  may  receive  forgiveness,  of  sins,  and 
inheritance  among  them  that  arc  sanctified  through  faith  that  is 
in  me.'- 

With  this  Commission  before  his  eyes,  the  most  earnest  de- 
fender of  "dipping  into  water"  as  the  faith  delivered  unto  the 
saints,  and  the  warmest  eulogist  of  its  "ecstatic"  blessings,  will 
hardly  deny  the  literal  accurac}'  of  Paul  when  he  declares,  dipping 
into  water  makes  no  appearance  in  his  Commission,  and  that  he 
was  made  an  apostle  for  a  very  different  purpose,  namely,  "  to 


Paul's  commission.  327 

preach  the  gospel."  What  is  in  this  Commission  ?  We  have : 
1.  The  preaching  of  the  truth  ("to  open  their  eyes");  2.  Con- 
viction of  error  and  repentance  for  sin  Q'' to  turn  them  from  dark- 
ness to  light");  3.  Supreme  allegiance  to  the  true  God  ("to  turn 
them  from  the  power  of  Satan  to  God  ") ;  4.  Forgiveness  of  sin 
to  the  repentant  {too  XajSs'tv  aipzaij  aij-aprtiov) ;  5.  Salvation  through 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ("inheritance  among  the  sanctified 
by  faith  in  me  ").  Is  this  the  gospel  ?  Is  it  the  whole  of  it?  Has 
"  dipping  into  water,"  that  vital  element  of  the  gospel,  without 
which  no  lawful  church  can  exist,  no  true  church  membership 
can  be  recognized,  no  right  to  eat  of  the  broken  body  and  shed 
blood  of  a  crucified  Saviour  can  be  admitted,  has  this  vital  ele- 
ment (stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesiae)  been  overlooked  in  the  Com- 
mission from  the  adorable  Head  of  the  Church  to  his  personally 
chosen  and  commissioned  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  ?  Whether  it 
be  through  oversight  or  not,  it  is  most  certain  that  no  commis- 
sion to  dip  into  water  was  given  to  Paul  by  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  lack  of  it,  however,  does  not  seem  to  embarrass 
Paul.  He  goes  forward  to  preach  a  gospel  of  which  dipping  into 
water  forms  no  part,  and  to  found  churches  into  the  membership 
of  which  "  dipping  into  water"  does  not  constitute  "the  door" 
(Pepper,  20-23),  and  to  celebrate  the  dying  love  of  Christ,  all 
unconscious  that  "  a  dipping  into  water  "  admits  or  rejects  from 
doing  this  in  remembrance  of  the  Crucified,  under  the  penalty 
of  "  acting  a  lie." 

Whether  this  element  entered  into  the  Commission  of  the  other 
Apostles  any  more  than  into  that  of  Paul,  will  be  considered 
hereafter.  Paul  fulfilled  his  Commission  (26  :  19,  20)  by  preach- 
ing— "  Repent  and  turn  to  God  through  faith  in  Christ." 

Not  to  Baptize. 

Paul  does  not  deny  the  obligation,  or  divine  authority,  of 
ritual  baptism  (hovvever  much  he  might  do  both  as  to  a  dipping 
into  water) ;  but  he  denies  its  relative  worth ;  he  denies  that  this 
rite  is  a  primary  element  in  the  gospel,  or  essential  to  its  per- 
fection of  power.  It  is  a  divine  appendage  to  the  gospel  as  a  hel]) 
to  human  infirmit}'^,  and  is  dependent  upon  the  gospel  for  its 
value.  Prof.  Pepper  (p.  20)  says:  "The  gospel  spoken  is  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  gospel  embodied  in  ordinances."  This  makes 
ordinances  precede  the  gospel.     Paul  teaches  the  reverse  of  this. 


328  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

The  gospel  is  antecedent  to  its  symbols,  which  are  but  reflectors 
of  its  truths  and  must  be  interpreted  b}^  them.  The  gospel  in 
the  woman's  seed  was  before  Abel's  slain  lamb.  The  duty  of  the 
Patriarchs  was  not  first  to  slay  lambs,  but  first  to  preach  the 
promise,  and  then  expound  the  bleeding  victim  by  that  promise. 
Salvation  to  the  first  born  was  first  promised,  then  came  the 
slaying  of  the  lamb  and  the  sprinkling  of  the  family  door-posts 
in  Egypt. 


REPENTANCE  AND  FAITH  THOROUGHLY  CHANGE   THE   CONDITION  AND 
DO   THEREBY   BAPTIZE    THE    SOUL. 

Hebrews  6 :  2. 

PaTTTLGfiuv  6i.6axv?- 

"  Not  laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead  works,  and  of 
faith  toward  God  (baptizings  of  doctrine),  and  of  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment." 

Ti'a7islation. 

There  is  no  generally  accepted  translation  or  interpretation  of 
this  passage.  Whether  what  is  about  to  be  ofi"ered  relieves  the 
difficulties  heretofore  felt,  and  bears  within  it  the  self-evidencing 
power  of  truth,  others  will  determine. 

The  translations  which  have  been  proposed  are,  in  general, 
these:  1.  That  which  makes  all  the  Genitives  to  depend  on 
dsfiihov  (Murdock,  Alford)  ;  2.  That  which  makes  all  after  the 
first  two  to  depend  on  dtdayj^q  (Olshausen,  Ebrard)  ;  3.  That 
which  supplies  di8a;(Y/';  before  p-szavoiaq  and  rdfrrtwc,  and  makes  ^a-Tz- 
rtaiJMv  the  objective  Genitive  (Stuart,  Kuinoel)  ;  4.  That  which 
makes  (iannawv  dtdd/r/<;  belong  together  {i3ar.Ti(Tfxu>v  the  governing 
noun)  and  depend  on  OsfiiXwv  (Winer) ;  5.  That  which  unites  fiar:- 
Ttff/idiv  dida'/Y/^  making  the  former  the  governing  noun,  and  recog- 
nizing the  peculiarity  in  the  construction  of  this  phrase  (1)}^  the 
absence  of  the  conjunction)  as  compared  with  other  phrases  in  the 
sentence  (Bengcl);  6.  That  which  connects  these  words  as  in  the 
preceding  case,  but  with  a  ditt'erent  grammatical  relation,  and 
makes  them,  with  the  following  phrase,  parenthetical  and  in  appo- 
sition with  the  preceding  "  repentance  "  and  "  faith  "  (Calvin). 


BAPTISMS    OF    DOCTRINE.  329 

The  general  objection  which  has  been,  reciprocally,  made  to 
these  several  interpretations  has  been — "unjustifiable  departure 
from  the  construction." 

In  the  translation  which  we  have  proposed  making  "  baptizings 
of  doctrine"  in  apposition  with  repentance  and  faith,  and  paren- 
thetical, tlie  peculiarity  of  construction  which  marks  these  words, 
is  not  only  regarded  but  is  effectively  used  ;  the  normal  law  as  to 
the  Genitive  in  grammatical  construction  is  observed,  and  made 
harmonious  throughout  the  sentence ;  and  the  use  of  the  plural 
form  (ia-KTKTiiwv^  receives  explanation.  The  only  point  which  seems 
to  need  elucidation  is,  the  ground  on  which  "  baptisms  of  doc- 
trine "  can  be  placed  in  expository  apposition  with  repentance 
and  faith.  This  belongs  to  the  interpretation  and  the  justifj'ing 
reason  will  there  be  oflered. 

Interpretation. 

paT:rt<TiJ.u)v,  If  ^a-KXiaiiMv.^  as  used  in  this  passage,  refers  to 
Christian  baptism,  there  must  be  some  reason  for  it  and  an  ade- 
quate explanation  of  it.  A  reason  is  required,  because  the  usage 
is  peculiar  in  applying  this  term  to  denote  baptisms  in  connec- 
tion with  Christianity ;  it  being  found  nowhere  else  but  in  this 
Epistle,  and  here  but  in  one  other  place  (9  :  10,  dta<p6poiq  ,ianTCff;j.(n<;) 
where  it  plainly  refers  to  Jewish  baptisms  =  purifyings.  This 
woi'd  was  in  use  among  the  Jews  before  Christianit}',  and  before 
John's  mission.  John  introduced  a  new  word  (j3dnTi<Tfj.a)  which 
was  accepted  and  perpetuated  by  Christianity.  The  Jewish  form 
exhibits  the  executive  action  of  the  verb,  baptizing^  purifying ; 
the  Christian  form  marks  the  effect  of  the  verb's  action,  baptism^ 
purification. 

John  was  sent  to  declare  a  baptism  essentially  different  in  nature 
from  that  designated  before  his  coming  by  /SaTrrfff/xdc  :=  a  ceremo- 
nial purification,  and  therefore  (I  think  we  may  say)  he  adopted 
another  word  (i^dnrKT/m)^  both  because  of  its  essential  difference 
and  in  order  to  prevent  confusion,  conjoining  it  with  [leravoiaq^  to 
express  in  the  clearest  manner  that  his  baptism  (required  to  wel- 
come the  Messiah)  was  a  spiritual  purification. 

The  question  returns :  Why  does  Paul  in  this  Epistle  depart 
from  his  practice  in  other  Epistles  and  here  use  ^aTznaiiibM  ?  I 
know  of  no  better  reasons  to  give  than  these:  1.  He  is  writing  to 
"  Hebrews  "  who  are  familiar  with  this  word  ;  2.  He  was  writing 


330  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

concerning  the  purifyings  of  the  Law  to  which  the  distinctive 
popular  use  and  meaning  of  this  word  was  suitable,  and  to  which 
he  himself  (9  :  10)  applies  it;  3.  The  essential  difference  between 
l3anTiff/j.a  and  fia-Tl(T/j.6q  was  not  such  as  to  prevent  their  inter- 
change when  the  use  was  guarded  against  error,  as  is  done  in 
this  case  by  the  adjunct  5;fla/>7?,  which  removes  it  entirely  from  its 
popular  Jewish  use  ;  4.  The  noble  jirinciple  ruling  Paul's  life — 
"And  unto  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain  the 
Jews."  The  plural  form  of  this  word,  as  relating  to  Christian 
baptism,  has  been  an  embarrassment.  This  difficulty  is  factitious, 
not  real.  It  is  true,  that  there  is  but  one  Christian  baptism  ;  but 
it  is  not  true  that  there  is  but  one  form  of  words,  or  one  form  of 
thought,  by  which  that  baptism  can  be  expressed.  John  preached 
a  baptism  e;?  /is-rhotav^  and  also  a  baptism  d^  acpzatv  dimprtiuv. 
These  bajotisms,  in  relation  to  each  other,  have  distinctive  char- 
acteristics, and  so  regarded  are  two  baptisms;  but  in  their  com- 
mon relations  to  salvation,  they  are  one  baptism,  and  John  conjoins 
them  in  the  [-idnTiaiJ-a  neravoiaq  iiq  affetriv  aiJLu.fnt.u)v.  Peter  introduces 
faith  as  a  co-operative  element  with  repentance  in  this  baptism — 
^^  Repent  and  be  baptized  (iTri)  believing  upon  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  eiq  a<peav^  d/j.aprcujv.^^  Here  Repentance  and  Faith,  con- 
jointly, baptize  "  into  the  remission  of  sins." 

While  a  baptism  £.'?  iJ-sxrhoiav^  and  a  baptism  e;?  acpstrtv^  are  dis- 
tinctive baptisms,  as  between  themselves,  thc}^  are  entirely  equiv- 
alent baptisms  in  their  relation  to  the  baptism  e\^  -/^fjiffruv^  which 
is  the  "  one  baptism  "  of  Christianity.  There  is  no  difficulty, 
therefore,  in  the  plural  form  of  i^u-zi(TiJ.(hv  as  expressing  the  dis- 
criminating ditlerences  between  the  doctrines  of  Repentance  and 
Faith  as  received  into  the  soul ;  so  regarded  they  are  two  bap- 
tisms. As  to  the  point — Can  Repentance  and  Faith  baptize; 
and  do  the  Scriptures  teach  that  they  do  baptize  ?  An  answer 
may  be  gathered  from  what  has  been  said  in  explanation  of  this 
plural  form,  as,  also,  from  the  antecedent  results  developed  in 
this  Inquiry. 

There  is  nothing  in  Scripture  more  explicitly  stated,  than  that 
the  baptism  of  John's  mission  was  a  baptism  due  to  the  "  doc- 
trine "  of  Repentance,  preached  by  him.  This  baptism  was 
ritualized,  not  by  a  second  baptism  into  water ;  1.  Because  there 
is  no  logical  congruity  between  these  things ;  2.  Because  it  would 
destroy  life ;  3.  Because  the  proposed  substitute  for  a  baptism 
(a  dippivfj  into  water)  is  no  baptisjn ;  4.  Because  the  Scriptures 


BAPTISMS    OF    DOCTRINE.  331 

do  not  say  one  word  about  either  a  baptism  or  a  dipping  into 
water  ;  but  tliis  baptism  of  the  soul  by  repentance  was  ritualized 
in  a  rite  wherein  this  soul  baptism  was  verbally  announced,  and 
pure  water,  as  its  sj'^rabol,  was  applied  to  the  body. 

Tliis  same  baptism  of  the  soul  by  the  doctrine  of  Repentance, 
taught  and  received,  was  inculcated  under  Christianit}'  (Acts  2  : 
38)  ;  and  tlie  baptism  of  the  soul  which  is  by  faith  in  a  crucified 
Redeemer,  is  announced  in  those  last  words  of  his — "  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;"  in  which  words  there  is 
no  incongruous  admixture  of  faith  and  ritual  water  as  common 
and  equal  ground  for  salvation,  but  the  declaration  of  a  baptism 
into  Christ  by  faith,  when  this  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  is  re- 
ceived into  the  soul.  The  clear  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is,  that 
Repentance  baptizes  "  into  the  remission  of  sins,''  and  Faith 
baptizes  "  into  Jesus  Christ."  Therefore  it  is  that  Paul  declares, 
that  Repentance,  which  so  changes  the  condition  of  the  soul  as 
to  separate  it  (drzo  vsxpajv  k'pywv)  "  from  dead  works ;"  and  Faith, 
which  so  changes  the  condition  of  the  soul  as  to  lead  it  to  turn 
unto  and  rest  (irr'i  Bso]/)  "  upon  God,"  are  "  baptisms  of  doctrine" 
=  baptizing,  purifying  agencies  cleansing  through  Christ  and 
uniting  to  God.  If  these  things  be  so,  then,  the  apposition  be- 
tween "Repentance  and  Faith,"  and  "Baptisms  of  Doctrine,"  is 
established ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  we  have  the  difference 
characterizing  these  two  words,  as  compared  with  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  sentence,  accounted  for. 

This  explanation  receives  confirmation  from  the  form  "  Repent- 
ance {d~d  vzxpajv  epyiov)  from  dead  works,^^  which  corresponds  in 
structure  with  the  Jewish  form  "  (danzH^o/isvo^  utzo  vsy-pau  hajMzed 
from  the  dead^  It  is  impossible  to  believe,  that  Paul  writing  to 
Jews  familiar  with  the  form  "  baptized  from  the  dead,"  and  using 
the  form  "  Repentance  from  dead  works,"  did  not  refer  to  the 
baptism  with  which  they  were  familiar,  and  contrast  with  it  the 
baptism  of  Christianity,  which  is  not  "  from  the  ceremonial  pol- 
lution incurred  by  contact  with  a  dead  body"  but  from  the  soul 
pollution  incurred  by  doing  and  trusting  in  "dead  works." 

So,  the  condensed  statement.  Faith  iTrt  dsdv  may  justly  be  re- 
garded as  grounded  in  the  Christian  form — "  Be  baptized  (irz)) 
upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,"  which  issuing  (Acts  2 :  38)  im- 
mediatel3^,  in  a  baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins  through  Christ, 
has  its  ultimate  issue  in  the  baptism,  eiq  Oedv  =  "Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost." 


332  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

The  suggestion  as  to  the  structure  of  the  sentence  seems  to  be 
confirmed  b}'  that  which  is  generally  admitted  to  obtain  in  9  :  10 
"  meats,  and  drinks,  and  divers  baptizings  (ordinances  of  the 
flesh)  until  the  time  of  the  reformation."  "  The  terra  '  carnal 
ordinances  '  does  not  express  something  additional  to  the  meats^ 
and  drinks^  and  baptizings,  but  is  another  name  for  the  same 
ritual  observances."  According  to  the  Greek,  the  "  meats  and 
drinks  and  divers  baptizings "  go  to  compose  the  "  carnal  ordi- 
nances "  (Prof.  Wilson,  of  Belfast).  The  two  passages  seem  to 
be  quite  parallel  as  to  the  point  at  issue,  namely,  explanatory  ap- 
position. 

There  is  also  a  parallelism  between  the  phrases  j3a7:Tiff;j.a>v 
dcda^-r,q  and  [id-KTtffiJ.a  /leravoia^.  The  One  is  in  general,  a  teaching 
baptism,  and  the  other  is  in  particular,  a  repentance  baptism. 
The  use  of  the  Genitive  is  the  same  in  both  cases. 


Commentators. 

Calvin  {Comm.) :  "  Some  read  them  separately,  'of  baptisms 
and  of  doctrines,'  but  I  prefer  to  connect  them,  though  I  explain 
them  differently  from  others ;  for  I  regard  the  words  as  being  in 
apposition,  as  grammarians  say,  according  to  this  form,  '  Not 
laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance,  of  faith  in  God,  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  which  is  the  doctrine  of  baptisms  and 
of  the  laying  on  of  hands.'  If  therefore  these  two  clauses,  the 
doctrine  of  baptisms  and  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  be  included 
in  a  parenthesis,  the  passage  would  run  better ;  for  except  you 
read  them  as  in  apposition,  there  would  be  the  absurdity  of  a  repe- 
tition. For  what  is  the  doctrine  of  baptism  but  what  he  mentions 
here,  faith  in  God,  repentance,  judgment,  and  the  like?" 

Bengel  (Comm.):  " /iVi  is  not  put  before /JaTrrjrr/iaiv ;  for  three 
pairs  of  chief  particulars  are  enumerated,  and  the  second  par- 
ticular in  every  pair  has  the  conjunction  ;  but  only  the  third  pair 
is  similarl}^  connected  ;  from  which  it  is  also  evident,  that  iSanrKTiicbv 
and  Sil^ayifZ  must  not  be  separated.  BaTz~i(Tiun  dtSap^i;  were  baptisms 
which  were  received  by  those  who  devoted  themselves  to  the 
sacred  doctrine  of  the  Jews;  therefore,  by  the  addition  of  Stdaxr^^, 
they  are  distinguished  from  the  other  Levitical  washings." 

In  a  note  to  this  comment,  it  is  said:  "Bengel  evidently  un- 
derstands these  words  as  baptisms  of  or  into  doctrine,  not  as 
Eng.  Vers.,  the  doctrine  of  baptisms — Ed." 


CLEMENS    ALEXANDRINUS.  333 

Winer  (p.  192):  "  Heb.  6:2  is  a  difficult  passage;  (iaizTKriiiuv 
ftidayjii;  (depending  on  Os/jJmov)  certainly  belong  together,  and 
^cda/7^<;  cannot  be  torn  away  so  strangely  and  regarded  as  the 
governing  noun  to  all  fo.ur  Grenitives,  as  Ebrard  still  maintains. 
But  the  question  is,  whether  we  should  here  admit  a  transposi- 
tion for  didayv^q  [iar.T.ap.w^^  as  most  later  expositors  do.  Such  a 
transposition,  however,  would  be  at  variance  with  the  whole 
structure  of  the  verse ;  and  if  ^anrt.(t[x<n  didayr^q  is  translated  doc- 
trinal baptisms,  baptisms  in  connection  with  instruction,  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  the  legal  baptisms  (lustrations)  of  Judaism, 
this  appellation  is  confirmed  as  distinctivel}^  Christian  by  Matt. 

28  :  19  fia-Kriiravreq  aurooq dtdrinrxovrsq  abrouq.     Ebrard's  objection, 

that  Christian  baptism  is  distinguished  from  mere  lustrations, 
not  by  instruction,  but  b}'  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  regenera- 
tion, amounts  to  nothing,  for  Matt.  28  saj^s  nothing  about  the  for- 
giveness of  sins."  Page  551 :  "  As  to  placing  in  particular  the 
Genitive  before  the  governing  noun,  careful  writers  avoid  such 
arrangement  if  misapprehension  could  arise  from  it.  Hence  in 
Heb.  6  :  2  l^anrcffp-wv  dtoayv^q  is  not  for  dt.8ay.  /SaTir.,  especially  as  in 
the  other  groups  the  position  of  the  Genitive  is  in  accordance 
with  the  rule." 

ZuiNGLi  (de  Baptis.) :  "  The  baptism  of  John  required  a  new 
life,  and  pointed  to  hope  in  Christ.  And  this  was  the  baptism 
of  doctrine  (for  both  equally  baptized  with  water),  the  baptism 
of  Christ  required  nothing  else,  for  he  began  to  preach  no  other- 
wise than  John — '  Repent  ye.'  Since,  then,  John's  teaching  and 
Christ's  teaching  was  the  same,  it  follows  that  if  the  bajjlii^.m  of 
doctrine  was  the  same,  that  of  the  water  was  the  same  alsoy 

Brentius  (Horn.  21,  in  Ev.  Luc):  "  The  baptism  of  John  is 
such  as  is  his  teaching  and  his  word." 

Clemens  Alexandrinus. 

Clemens  Alex.  (Stromata  III,  18)  presents  a  remarkably  full 
and  clear  case  of  baptism  by  teaching.  It  is  as  follows  :  "  'Ex 
a(U(fpo(Tw-qq  ei'c  Tzopveiav  jdanri^dUfTC,  ralq  rjdovacq  xal  to7c  ndOsffc  yapi%£adat 
diiYiJ.azi'^i)\>re'z — TEACHING  to  indulge  in  pleasure  and  lust  they  bap- 
tize out  of  chastity  into  unchastity." 

This  passage  is  conclusive  as  to  the  following  points:  1.  A 
baptism  is  a  thorough  change  of  condition ;  2.  This  change  of 
condition  will  exhibit  the  evidence  of  an  assimilation  to  the  char- 


334  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

acteristic  of  the  baptizing  influence,  whatever  that  characteristic 
may  be;  3.  This  change  of  condition  is  without  limitation  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  influence  effecting  it,  the  manner  of  its  exercise, 
or  the  time  of  its  duration  ;  4.  This  change  of  condition  ma}'  be 
expressed  under  a  form  of  words  (^z,  eiq,  fta-ri'^uj)  originating  in 
physics,  witliout  requiring  a  correspondence,  in  form,  to  such 
physical  use  ;  5.  An  ideal  baptism  expresses  a  profound  realit}' ; 
6.  The  presence  of  water,  actual  or  imaginary,  is  unnecessary  to 
a  baptism  ;  Y.  Teaching  is  capable  of  baptizing ;  and  it  Avill  so 
baptize  a.s  to  exhibit  its  characteristic  in  its  disciples.  Teaching 
that  inculcates  "the  indulgence  of  pleasure  and  lust"  will  baptize 
its  discij)les  into  impurit}';  and  teaching  which  enjoins  "the 
observance  of  all  things  whatsoever  Jesus  Christ  has  com- 
manded," will  baptize  its  disciples  into  purity  and  "  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Corollary.  All  who  accept  the  baptism  of  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus,  dz  r.op'^dav,  must  accept  the  Bible  baptism  d^  iierdvoux'^,  e:? 
a^efftv^  eiq  Xpiffzov  ^Irjffouv^  eiq  rd  ovoixa  rou  llarpdq^  xai 

The  examination  of  this  passage  of  Scripture  shows  that  the 
statement,  that  baptisms  are  effected  by  doctrinal  truths,  is  a 
statement  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  entire  scope  of  Scripture, 
is  confirmed  by  the  results  antecedentl}^  reached,  while  it  is  itself, 
in  turn,  confirmatory  of  them. 

Since  writing  tlie  above  a  translation  of  the  Biblico-Theological 
Lexicon  of  New  Testament  Greek,  by  Hermann  Cremer,  Professor 
of  Theology  in  the  University  of  Greifswald  (Edinburgh,  1872) 
has  been  published.  The  following  quotation  s.  v.  [iar.zi'^u)  bears 
upon  the  interpretation  above  given  to  the  passage  before  us: 
"  The  baptism  of  John  is  styled  zar'.  i^.  the  ^dnnaiia  jitrawiaq  ;  we 
might  accordingly  designate  Christian  baptism  [iar^Tiaim  TzisTtu);:^ 
coll.  Acts  19  :  45,  Acts  8  :  12,  13.  ...  Heb.  G  :  2,  /?«7rrj^,awv  Ma;^^; 
as  a  constituent  of  the  u  r?)?  n-p'/St'^  "!"""  ^^-  ^^yo':-  Accordingly  it  is 
less  probable  that  the  writer  referred  to  Christian  baptism  in  dis- 
tinction from  O.  T.  lustrations,  than  to  the  difference  and  relation 
between  Christian  baptism  and  that  of  Jolin, — a  difterence  which 
would  often  need  to  be  discussed." 

There  is  no  need  for  introducing  the  bai)tism  of  John,  distinc- 
tively, since  the  baptism  of  Repentance  and  the  baptism  of  Faith 
alike  belong  to  Christianity. 

Cremer  also  says :  The  specialty  of  a  baptism  depends  upon 
the  relation  into  wliich  candidates  are  brought  as  denoted  by  ei<: 


ANTITYPE    BAPTISM    SAVES.  335 

and  its  kegimen.  "  Ek  is  invariabhj  used  in  an  ideal  sense.'^ 
Such  is  the  doctrine  of  this  Inquiry.  The  acceptance  of  this 
doctrine  carries  with  it  all  the  essential  results  of  the  Inquiry, 
when  consistently  carried  out. 


ANTITYPE    BAPTISM    SAVES   THE    SOUL,    AND    IS    BAPTISM    BY 
THE    HOLY   GHOST. 

1  Peter  3:  21. 

'Q  Kal  Tjnaq  nvTiTvirov  vvv  au^ei  pdirTia/ia  [ov  acp/fof,  cnroOeaig  pinrnv,  aAAd 
ovveidtjOEioq  aT^Tjdrjq^  hnep^rrjiia  eif  Geov),  6i.'  avaardaeug  'Itjcov  Xpcarov. 

"  By  which,  also,  antitype  Baptism  now  saves  us  (not  of  the  flesh,  the  put- 
ting away  of  filth,  but  of  a  good  conscience,  the  requirement  toward  God), 
through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ." 

The  Text. 

The  reading  of  this  passage  is  not  settled.  Knapp  introduces 
V.  21  with  o  xa\^  and  places  w  xai,  in  the  raai'gin.  Bloomfield  re- 
verses this  arrangement.  The  Codex  Sinaiticus  omits  both  o  and 
to,  commencing  the  verse  with  xa\. 

These  diversities  are  not  unimportant.  If  the  reading  8  be 
accepted  then  a  relation  is  established  with  "  water "  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse  and,  also  (though  not  with  the  same  facility),  with 
avTiruTTov  ftdTrri(r;j.a.  If  u>  xai  be  adopted  then  its  relation  is  naturally 
formed  with  the  iv  u>  xa\  of  v.  19,  and  the  reference  is  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  necessarily  stamps  a  like  character  on  avriruTzov  (idn- 
Tiff'ia.  The  omission  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  throws  its  whole 
weight  against  any  reference  to  "  water"  in  v.  20,  and  as  strongly 
favors  the  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  because  with  the  reading 
which  it  presents  no  connection  can  be  established  between  avrt- 
TUTzov  ftd7:Tt<T/ia  and  the  flood  water  ;  while  its  connection  with  the 
Holy  Spirit,  as  the  baptism  effected  by  Him,  becomes  imperative. 

Translation. 

The  translation  given  above  (especially  that  in  parenthesis)  is 
not  given  as  that  which  must  be,  but  which  may  be,  correct. 
The  parenthetic  statement  is  evidently  explanatory  of  the  saving 


336  CHRTSTIC    BAPTISM. 

power  of  baptism.  It  is  cautionary  against  possible  error.  The 
Scriptures  speak  of  two  baptisms,  a  symbol  baptism  of  the  body, 
effected  by  water,  and  a  real  baptism  of  the  soul,  effected  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  Apostle  says,  antitype  baptism  which  saves,  is 
not  that  baptism  which  relates  to  the  body,  cleansing  from  cere- 
monial or  physical  defilement,  but  that  baptism  which  relates  to 
the  soul  and  reaches  the  accusing  or  excusing  conscience,  efi'ect- 
ing  what  God  asks,  spiritual  purit^'. 

' E-epiUTfjiio.  is  the  translation  by  the  Septuagint  of  the  Hebrew 
asking  (Eng.  "demand")  in  Dan.  4:14,  where  Gesenius  says, 
"  the  subject  of  inquiry,"  is  intended.  What  God  asks  for,  he 
requires. 

He  asks  for  and  requires  a  good  conscience.  Paul  (Acts  23  :  1) 
says,  "  I  have  lived  with  all  good  conscience  (rJ)  0£w)  unto  God  ;" 
24  :  16,  "I  exercise  myself  always  to  have  a  conscience  void  of 
offence  toward  God;"  and  Peter  (1,  2:  19)  says,  "This  is  thank- 
worthy if  a  man  for  conscience  toward  God."  These  two  things 
are  certain  :  I.God  requires  a  good  conscience;  2.  Baptism  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  gives  a  good  conscience,  and  nothing  else  does. 
This  lays  the  foundation  for  the  representation  of  "a  good  con- 
science "  as  the  result  of  "  antitype  baptism,"  and  herein  meeting 
the  lr.£fj(i}T-Qij.a  £\<;  deuv.  Any  translation  of  this  passage  which 
makes  it  to  hinge  on  water  (flood  water,  rite  water)  is  essentially 
faulty. 

Interpretation. 

The  Baptist  Version  interprets  the  water  of  the  flood  as  the 
type  and  the  water  of  rite  baptism  as  the  antitype  :  "  Eight  souls 
were  saved  through  water ;  which  in  an  antitype,  immersion,  now 
saves  us  also ;"  this  is,  in  every  aspect,  an  impossible  interpre- 
tation. 

There  is  no  element  of  congruit}^  between  the  office  of  the  water 
of  the  flood  and  the  office  of  the  water  of  ritual  baptism  to  con- 
stitute the  one  a  type  of  the  other.  The  resemblance  can  onh'  be 
in  the  office,  for  to  make  simple  water  the  type  of  simple  water 
would  be  absurd.  But  the  oflTice  of  water  in  the  flood  is  that  of 
destruction,  and  to  this  there  is  no  counterpart  in  the  office  of 
water  in  baptism.  If  a  saving  office  for  water  is  sought  in  its 
upbearing  the  ark,  and  the  indication  of  such  function  is  claimed 
to  be  expressed  by  (iC  udazo^,  the  error  is  twofold:  1.  It  robs  the 
ark  of  its  saving  office  to  give  it  to  the  destroying  flood  ;  and,  2. 


ANTITYPE    BAPTISM    SAVES.  337 

It  misinterprets  5«'  u8azn<;  which  is,  properly,  expressive  of  this 
destructive  tendency.  The  flood  did  upbear  the  ark;  but  this 
was  not  its.  office.  Its  mission  was  solely  one  of  death.  But  the 
wisdom  of  God  devised  a  plan  whereby  safety  might  be  evolved 
amid  destruction.  This  he  did  by  the  introduction  of  a  new  and 
diverse  agency  having  such  a  quality  that  it  could  overcome  and 
rise  above  the  agency  for  destruction.  This  was  the  ark,  pos- 
sessed of  a  buoyancy  which  enabled  it  to  overcome  the  whelming 
tendency  of  the  waters,  and  bear  in  safety  "  the  few  "  who  with- 
out its  protecting  power  would  have  been  engulfed  in  the  deadly 
flood.  Was  it  the  Nile  water  or  the  bulrush  cradle  which  saved 
the  infant  Moses  ? 

The  <5£'  udaro^  expresses  the  peril  of  the  waters,  and  tlius  mag- 
nifies the  saving  power  of  the  ark.  It  has  in  this  respect,  the 
same  power  as  did.  TzupSq  in  1  Cor.  3  :  15,  saved  yet  so  as  "  through 
fire  ;"  that  is,  "  saved  with  great  difficulty.  That  such  is  the  sense 
of  this  (as  it  seems)  adagial  phrase,  most  Commentators  are 
agreed  "  (Bloom field).  Peter,  in  this  same  epistle  (1  Peter  1 :  7- 
9),  illustrates  this  usage :  "  Your  faith  .  .  .  tried  {did  izupoq) 
through  fire  .  .  .  the  end  salvation  of  j^our  souls."  Here  "  through 
fire  "  represents  exposure  to  the  extremest  perils,  while  faith  has 
a  divine  quality  able  to  endure  them  and  save  its  possessor  from 
them.  The  ark  passed  through  the  extreme  and  prolonged  perils 
of  the  flood  but  saved  {8C  uda-o^)  all  who  were  in  it,  through  the 
goodness,  and  wisdom,  and  power  of  God,  who  devised  it  for  this 
very  purpose,  namely,  to  over^come  the  destructive  character  of  the 
waters.  If  saving  power  is  attributed  to  the  flood  water  and  we 
ask.  Saved  from  what?  this  dilemma  emerges,  namely  :  The  flood 
water  saved  from  the  flood  water.  And  if  relief  is  sought  by  call- 
ing on  the  ark  for  help,  it  is  a  confession  that  the  case,  as  put, 
sinks  like  lead  into  the  waters. 

A  second  radical  objection  to  making  the  water  of  the  flood  a 
tj^pe  of  the  water  of  ritual  baptism,  is  this  :  The  water  in  ritual 
baptism  is  itself  (not  a  type,  but)  a  symbol,  it  cannot  therefore  be 
the  basis  for  a  type ;  nor  can  it  make  any  claim  to  the  title  of  an 
"  antitype." 

"A  type  is  a  symbol  appointed  by  God  to  adumbrate  some- 
thing higher  in  the  future,  which  is  called  antitype.  The  true 
type  looks  forward  to  the  distant  future.  A  pure  symbol  may 
represent  something  which  now  exists"  (Prof.  Barrow,  Comp.  of 
the  Bible,  p.  580).     If  it  were  possible  for  so  incongruous  a  thing 

22 


338  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM, 

as  a  destroying  flood  to  be  a  type  of  ritual  baptism,  still,  the  mere 
ritual,  shadow  character  of  this  ordinance  would  preclude  it.  No 
figure  can  be  the  basis  of  a  figure. 

Type  Salvation — Antitype  Salvation. 

What  Peter  deduces  from  his  reference  to  the  flood  is:  1.  Sal- 
vation— "were  saved;"  2.  Salvation  by  the  ark — "wherein  eight 
souls  were  saved ;"  3.  Salvation  in  the  ark,  by  God — "  God 
waited  "  (kept  back  the  destroying  watei's)  "while  the  ark  was  a 
preparing,"  as  the  means  of  salvation. 

Peter  says,  this  tyjie  salvation  of  eight  souls  foreshadows  an 
antitype  salvation:  1.  In  antitype  5ap/ism,  "  which  saves  us;" 
2.  In  its  adequate  and  divine  method  (1)  ecq  /lerdvocav  ("into  re- 
pentance ") ;  (2)  ei?  a^effiv  aimprnov  "  into  the  remission  of  sins ;" 
(.3)  ei'c  Xpiazw  "  into  Christ ;"  which  places  the  souls  of  the  re- 
deemed Iv  A'pnTToJ  "in  Christ,"  as  their  ark  of  safety;  3.  In  its 
divine  Executor,  a»  xai  "  by  whom  antitype  baptism  "  (which  is  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit)  "saves  us,  through  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ,"  who  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened 
by  the  Spirit  (tw  Ihehpuzi.)^  through  whom  (^8ta  Uveijuarnq  aiwviou^ 
he  had  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God,  this  same  divine 
Spirit  having  dwelt  in  Christ  living,  and  watched  over  his  slain 
body  in  the  tomb,  does  now  shut  up  the  windows  of  heaven,  close 
the  fountains  of  the  deep,  dry  up  the  imperilling  flood  waters, 
quicken  the  dead,  and  bring  forth  alive  again  the  Ark  of  our  sal- 
vation triumphant  through  the  power  of  God  over  all  perils,  and 
all  his  people  saved  in  Ilira,  as  attested  and  sealed  "b}^  his  resur- 
rection." Therefore,  "  Antitype  Baptism,  wrought  by  the  Spirit 
q/"  God,  saves  ua  through  the  resurrection  q/ Jesus  Christ." 

Carson  and  Gill. 

Carson  (pp.  388-413)  says:  "Dr.  Miller  dismisses  the  argu- 
ment from  1  Peter  3  :  20,  21,  on  the  groujid  that  there  was  no 
immersion  of  Noah  and  his  family.  With  as  great  propriety  the 
learned  gentleman  may  deny  tlint  a  man  in  a  tomb  is  buried,  be- 
cause he  is  covered  with  a  coffin.  Wliat !  Noah  not  immersed 
when  buried  in  the  waters  of  the  flood  ?  Are  there  no  bounds  to 
pervcrseness  ?  Will  men  say  everything  rather  than  admit  the 
mode  of  an  ordinance  of  Clirist  which  is  contrary  to  tlic  command- 
ments of  men  ?    What  could  be  a  more  im|)ressive  burial  in  water, 


CARSON    AND    GILL.  339 

than  to  be  in  the  ark  when  it  was  floating  ?  As  well  might  it  be 
said  that  a  person  is  not  buried  in  earth,  when  lying  in  his  coffin 
covered  with  earth.  The  ordinance  of  baptism  and  the  salvation 
of  Noah  by  water,  have  the  most  lively  resemblance.  Noah  and 
his  family  were  saved  by  being  buried  in  the  water  of  the  Jiood; 
and  after  the  flood  thei/  emerged  as  rising  from  the  grave." 

No  wonder  Dr.  Miller,  the  Princeton  Professor,  "  dismissed  the 
argument "  (?)  contained  in  words  like  these.  He  would  have 
shown  that  he  had  lost  his  senses  had  he  undertaken  soberly  to 
listen  to  the  statement,  that  "  Noah  and  his  family  were  saved  by 
being  buried  in  the  water  of  the  flood,  and  emerging  as  rising 
from  the  grave."  I  will  venture  to  say,  that  one,  two,  three,  four 
thousand  years  rolled  away  after  the  flood  waters  rolled  away,  be- 
fore such  a  conceit  ever  entered  any  man's  brain. 

If  Dr.  Carson  had  said,  "  God  saved  Noah  and  his  famil}^  by 
converting  them  into  fishes,  and  burying  them  in  the  waters  of 
the  flood,  whence,  on  the  subsidence  of  the  waters,  they  emerged 
as  rising  from  the  grave,  fully  restored  to  their  humanity,"  he 
would  find  just  about  as  many  to  believe  "the  argument"  (and 
just  about  the  same  persons)  as  believe  the  salvation  =  burial  = 
resurrection  "  argument." 

Dr.  Carson  is  a  man  of  ability,  in  certain  directions  of  unusual 
ability,  of  respectable  learning,  of  honesty,  of  piety,  of  deep  con- 
victions, of  self-confidence  which  holds  a  world  in  arms  no  woi'thy 
matcli  for  himself  alone,  and,  for  all  these  reasons  combined,  a 
man  of  power;  but  on  the  difficulties  of  water-dipping,  and  burial, 
and  resurrection,  he  is  not  a  sober-minded  man.  Had  he  been  he 
would  not  have  written  about  the  dipping  of  Noah  and  his  family 
by  burial  in  the  flood  for  a  3'ear  (more  or  less),  followed  b3f  a 
living  resurrection ;  nor  of  the  dipping  of  the  millions  of  Israel 
by  a  burial-march  and  resurrection  in  the  empty  space  of  the 
Red  Sea;  nor  of  the  dipping  of  the  Apostles  "in  sound  like 
wind,"  with  burial  under  cloven  tongues  (!)  and  resurrection,  I 
know  not  how.     Sanity  never  went  farther  in  extravagance. 

Gill  (Body  of  Divinity,  pp.  642)  says :  "This  dipping  into  water 
may  be  concluded  from  the  various  figurative  and  typical  baptisms 
spoken  of  in  Scripture,  as,  1.  From  the  waters  of  the  flood,  which 
Tertullian  calls  the  baptism  of  the  world,  and  of  which  tlie  Apostle 
Peter  makes  baptism  the  Antitype,  1  Peter  3:21.  The  ark  in 
which  Noah  and  his  family  were  saved  by  water  was  God's  ordi- 
nance; it  was  made  according  to  the  pattern  he  gave  to  Noah,  as 


340  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

baptism  is ;  and  as  tliat  was  the  object  of  the  scorn  of  men,  so  is 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  rightly  administered ;  and  as  it  is  rep- 
resented a  burial  when  Noah  and  his  family  were  shut  up  in  it, 
so  baptism ;  and  when  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  were 
broken  up  below,  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were  opened  above, 
the  ark  with  those  in  it  were,  as  it  were,  covered  and  immersed 
in  water ;  and  so  was  a  figure  of  baptism  by  immersion  ;  and  as 
there  were  none  but  adult  persons  in  the  ark,  who  were  saved  by 
water  in  it,  so  none  but  adult  persons  are  the  proper  subjects  of 
baptism." 

This  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  reasoning  which  seeks  to  convert 
Christian  baptism  into  water-dipping.  It  is  composed  of  some 
dozen  of  lines ;  let  us  see  how  its  errors  compare  with  them  in 
number.  1.  "This  dipping  into  water."  There  is  not  one  word 
of  Scripture  for  a  dipping  into  water  as  Christian  baptism. 
2.  "The  various  figurative  and  tj'pical  baptisms  spoken  of  in 
Scripture."  There  are  no  such  "various"  things  in  Scripture. 
Baptism  "  into  Moses  "  is  the  onlj'  type  baptism  mentioned  in 
Scripture,  and  in  it  must  be  found  all  the  type  dipping,  burial, 
and  resurrection,  known  to  inspiration.  3.  "  "Which  Tertullian 
calls  the  baptism  of  the  world."  Tertullian 's  world  baptism  is  no 
more  like  Gill's  baptism  than  is  a  horse-chestnut  like  a  chestnut 
horse.  4.  "  The  Apostle  Peter  makes  baptism  the  antitype  of 
the  waters  of  the  flood."  This  is  pure  error.  5.  "  The  ark  was 
God's  ordinance."  Yes,  for  salvation ;  then  the  waters  of  the 
flood  were  not  God's  ordinance  for  salvation.  6.  "  The  ark  was 
made  according  to  the  pattern,  as  baptism  is."  The  pattern  of 
the  ark  is  in  Genesis,  cubits  and  inches  ;  where  is  the  baptism 
pattern?  7.  "As  the  ark  was  the  scorn  of  men,  so  is  baptism 
rightly  administered."  Of  scorn  for  the  ark,  I  know  nothing,  as 
the  Bible  says  nothing.  Of  the  sophistry  which  declares  scorn 
for  man^s  inventions^  to  be  scorn  for  God's  ordinance,  I  know 
something,  for  Dr.  Gill  exhibits  it.  Dr.  Gill  and  friends  say: 
"  For  a  thousand  years  baptism  was  rightly  administered  ;"  and 
3'et,  through  all  that  time,  "  babies  "  were  baptized ;  men  and 
women  were  baptized  naked ;  oil,  and  salt,  and  spittle,  were  used 
in  baptism  ;  and  baptismal  regeneration  taught,  to  reject  which 
Dr.  Pusey  says  (p.  39)  "  is  the  scarcely  disguised  contempt  of  an 
ordinance  of  our  Saviour;"  all  which  things  Dr.  Gill  "scorns." 
Does  he  therefore  '■'' scorn  Godln  ordinance  rightly  administered?" 
When  we  are  told,  in  vindication  of  their  practice,  by  those  who 


CARSON    AND    GILL.  341 

"administer  baptism  rightly,"  that  "there  is  no  difference  be- 
tween iSdnro)  and  (iaTzriZtj) ;"  and  also  "  that  iSaizzi'^u)  means  dip 
and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek  literature,"  we  hold  such 
assertions  in  light  esteem.  Do  we  therefore  "  scorn  God's  ordi- 
nance?" When  we  are  told  udart  /Sarrr/Cw  means  "to  dip  into 
water,"  but  ^anri'^a)  di;  iisravniav  does  not  mean  "  to  baptize  into 
repentance,"  we  hold  such  assertions  in  light  esteem.  Do  we 
therefore  "scorn  God's  ordinance?"  When  we  are  told  ^'•dipping 
into  water  is  the  door  of  the  church,  is  necessary  to  sitting  down 
at  the  table  of  the  Head  of  the  Church,  is  essential  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  true  church,"  we  hold  such  assertions  in  light  esteem. 
Do  we  therefore  "  scorn  God's  ordinance  ?"  When  we  are  told 
that  we  "knowingly  obscure  God's  truth,"  that  we  "need  honesty 
and  not  light,"  that  we  "  act  a  lie  "  in  sitting  down  to  the  Lord's 
Table,  unless  "sincerely  ignorant"  and  "incapable  of  being  made 
to  know  the  truth,"  we  hold  such  assertions  in  light  esteem.  Do 
we  therefore  "  scorn  God's  ordinance  ?" 

There  are  some  things  which  mayjustlj^be  scorned.  Among 
these  are  sophistical  pleading  by  raising  false  issues  when  true 
issues  cannot  be  met,  and  flinging  reproaches  at  character  when 
argument  cannot  be  answered.  Is  such  scorn,  also,  "  scorn  at 
God's  ordinance?"  8.  "When  Noah  and  his  famil3'^  were  shut 
up  in  the  ark,  it  is  represented  as  a  burial."  By  Dr.  Gill,  not  by 
Moses.  9.  "So  Baptism."  Yes,  just  so;  that  is,  by  neither  word 
nor  thought.  11.  "  The  ark  and  those  in  it  were^  as  it  were,  cov- 
ered and  immersed  in  water."  That  is  to  say  by  admission,  what 
in  the  (claimed)  antitype  is  its  alpha  and  omega  (sine  qua  non), 
has  no  existence  in  the  type,  but  only  a  "were  as  it  were."  Such 
a  type  is  fashioned  after  no  other  type  that  ever  was.  12.  "And 
so  was  a  figure  of  baptism  by  immersion."  It  might  be  well  to 
find  something  that  would  be  a  figure  of  baptism  by  dipping. 
The  ark,  not  dipped  into  the  waters  but  rising  above  them,  is  not 
a  good  figure  of  "  the  act  commanded "  ("  the  ark  was  made 
according  to  the  pattern^'');  nor  was  the  rain  sprinkled  or  poured 
(without  covering  or  immersing)  for  forty  days  and  fort}^  nights, 
a  good  "figure  of  baptism  by  immersion^  13.  "None  but  adult 
persons  in  the  ark  who  were  saved  by  water,  in  it."  Dr.  Gill 
complains  that  those  after  whom  he  patterns  in  "  baptism  rightly 
administered,"  believed  that  souls  were  "  saved  by  water ;"  and 
regular  Baptists  find  fault  with  Campbellite  Baptists  because  they 
believe  that  water  is  necessary  ^'•for  the  remission  of  sins ;"  and 


342  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

yet  he  says,  salvation  was  "by  the  type  water!"  How  has  this 
salvation  become  a  vanishing  quantity  in  the  Antitype  ?  14."  So 
none  but  adult  persons  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism."  This 
logic  is  remarkable.  "None  but  adults  saved  by  water;  therefore, 
none  but  adults  the  proper  subjects  of  water  baptism."  What  has 
become,  in  the  conclusion,  of  the  "  salvation  "  which  was  in  the 
premise  ?  But  who  were  these  "  none  but  adults  in  the  Ark  ?  " 
Unbelievers  (Xoali  excepted),  if  we  take  the  Bible  statement 
(Gen.  7:1).  Therefore,  as  unbelievers  were  "saved  by  water,"  so 
unbelievers  are  the  joroper  subjects  of  water  baptism.  But  again: 
Who  were  these  "none  but  adults  in  the  ark"?  They  were  a 
family,  the  Head  of  which  was  by  faith  in  covenant  relation  with 
God,  who,  for  the  father's  sake,  embraced  the  children,  though 
unbelieving,  within  the  gracious  covenant  and  "  saved  them  by 
water;''''  therefore,  the  children  of  a  believing  parent  (though 
themselves  unbelieving)  are  the  proper  subjects  of  water  baptism. 
Those  who  handle  sharp  tools  should  be  careful  to  note  whether 
they  may  not  have  two  edges. 

This  statement  of  Dr.  Gill  has  an  error  for  every  line;  and  no 
wonder,  for  "  as  is  the  root  so  are  the  branches." 

Antitype  Baptism  is  Salvation 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  II,  368,  on  Baptism,  says :  "  But  we 
being  twofold,  I  mean  spiritual  and  corporeal,  the  one  by  nature 
visible  and  the  other  invisible ;  purification  is,  also,  twofold,  by 
(o'.ri)  water  and  Spirit ;  the  one  received  visibly  and  corporeall}^, 
the  other  concurring  invisibly  and  incorporeally  ;  the  one  {runtxou) 
typical,  the  other  {aXfjOivm))  real,  and  purifying  the  depths.'' 
Neither  Gregory  N.  nor  any  other  Patrist  believed  that  there 
was  any  7'eal  ("true")  baptism  in  dipping  into  water. 

DiDYMUS  Alex.  XXXIX,  716:  Having  quoted  Ezek.  36:22, 
"  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you  and  ye  shall  be  clean  from 
all  your  sins;"  and,  also,  Ps.  50:8,  '"'■  Sprinkle  me  with  hyssop 
and  I  shall  be  clean ;  wash  me  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow ;" 
thus  explains  :  "  For  the  sprinlding  with  hyssop  was  Judaic  pu- 
rification, which  is  continued  by  them  to  the  present  time  ;  but 
'  whiter  than  snow  '  denotes  Christian  illumination,  which  means 
baptism.  .  .  .  And  Peter,  that  he  may  show  in  his  first  Epistle, 
that  if  baptism,  which  was  formerly  in  shadow  {iv  ffxta)  saved, 
much  more  that  which  was  in  reality  (cv  d?.rjOeia)  immortalizes 


ANTITYPE    BAPTISM    IS    SALVATION.  343 

and  deifies  us,  wrote  thus :  '  Antitype  baptism  now  saves  us.' " 
An}^  one  vvho  ventures  to  say,  that  Didym.  Alex,  believed  that 
dipping  into  water  was  antitype  baptism  tv  dXrjOsia,  thereby  for- 
feits claim  to  patristic  lore.  "  Baptism  in  shadow  "  (type  bap- 
tism) was  effected  by  sprinkling  with  h^'ssop.  "  Baptism  in  re- 
ality "  (antitype  Baptism)  was  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit  giving 
salvation  and  allying  to  the  Deity. 

Ambrose,  Apol.  David,  §  59:  "  He  who  desired  to  be  purified 
{typico)  by  typical  baptism  was  sprinkled  {adspergehatar)  with 
the  blood  of  the  lamb  by  a  bunch  of  hyssop." 

T^'pe  baptism  was  by  sprinkled  blood  of  the  lamb  of  the  flock ; 
antitype  baptism  was  by  the  sprinkled  blood  of  the  Lamb  of 
God,  which  cleanses  from  sin  and  saves  the  soul  through  the 
office  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  never  entered  into  the  imagination  of  these  Greeks  and 
their  disciples,  that  a  type  baptism  should  have  in  it  a  dipping, 
or  an  immersing,  or  a  covering;  a  "sprinkling"  fully  met  their 
Greekly  conceptions  of  a  baptism  which  by  its  purifying  and 
saving  power  was  to  be  a  type  of  that  higher  purification  and 
salvation  which  was  to  be  found  in  the  Antitype  baptism,  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  idea  of  Christian  baptism  consisting  in  or  being  a  nullity 
without  a  dipping  into  water,  is  a  novelty  of  yesterday,  and  has 
no  place  in  the  histor};-  of  the  church  until  these  latter  days. 
Therefore,  those  most  ludicrously  irrational  attempts  to  bury 
Noah  in  the  ark  ;  and  to  immerse  the  ark  in  the  flood  ;  to  bury 
Israel  in  the  highway  openecl  through  the  sea;  and  to  cover  the 
Apostles  in  "  the  sound  "  reverberating  through  the  house,  -at 
Pentecost,  in  order  to  find  a  baptism,  are  extravagances  which, 
among  all  the  extravagances  of  the  ages,  stand  unrivalled. 

This  is  said,  with  the  clear  perception  and  full  recognition  of 
the  historic  fact,  that  through  long  centuries.  Christian  baptism 
was  administered  with  the  body  naked  and  the  water  covering 
every  part.  Whether  this  historic  fact  conflicts  in  the  slightest 
degree  with  the  statement  above  made,  namely,  That  Christian 
baptism  as  consisting  in  a  dipping  into  water  is  a  novelty  and  has 
no  place  in  the  history  of  the  church  for  more  than  a  thousand 
years  after  its  establishment,  will  receive  consideration  in  its 
place. 


344  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


CHRISTIANITY   HAS   BUT   ONE   DISTINCTIVE   BAPTISM   WHICH   IS 
BY   THE    HOLY   GHOST   INTO    THE  LORD   JESUS    CHRIST. 

Ephesians  4:  5. 

Etf  Ki'piOf,  //ia  Ti  iariq^  h>  fidnTca/xa. 

"  There  is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope  of 
your  calling  ; 

"  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism, 

"  One  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  you 
all." 

"  One  Baptism." 

Professor  J.  L.  Dagg  (Manual  of  Theo.,  Southern  Bapt.  Pub. 
Soc,  p.  16),  states  the  followhig  objection  and  reply:  "  Objection. 
Paul  teaches  that  there  is  one  baptism.  Now,  there  is  a  baptism 
of  the  Spirit ;  and  if  water  baptism  is  a  perpetual  ordinance  of 
Christianity,  there  are  two  baptisms  instead  of  one." 

"  Answer.  Paul  says,  '  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism.'  As 
he  uses  the  words  Lord  and  faith,  in  their  literal  sense,  so  he 
uses  the  word  baptism  in  its  literal  sense.  In  this  sense  there  is 
but  one  baptism.  John  the  Baptist  foretold  that  Christ  would 
baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit :  And  Jesus  said  to  his  disciples, 
'  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with.' 
Both  these  baptisms  were  known  to  Paul.  These  figurative  bap- 
tisms were  two  in  number:  while  the  literal  baptism  was  but  one. 
He  must  therefore  have  intended  the  latter." 

1.  This  i-easoning  is  not  satisfactory.  It  is  a  mistake  to  say :  The 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  foretold  by  John  as  characteristic  of 
the  Coming  One,  is  a  distinct  baptism  from  that  declared  by  the 
Saviour,  "  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  bap- 
tized with."  The  first  statement  announces  a  Divine  and  eflicient 
agency  in  baptism  ;  the  second  announces  the  nature  of  the  bap- 
tism which  the  disciples  of  Christ  in  all  ages  must  receive, 
namely,  the  baptism  of  the  Cross,  which  has  a  sin-remitting 
power  and  all  the  virtues  of  a  perfected  atonement,  which  bap- 
tism is  expressed  as  a  baptism  into  Christ — "  as  man}^  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  have  been  baptized  into  iiis 
DEATH."  This  baptism  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  state- 
ments of  John  and  of  Christ,  therefore,  do  not  declare  two  bap- 
tisms but  the  divine  Agent,  and  the  "one  baptism  "  of  Christianity 
effected  by  that  divine  Agent. 


ONE    BAPTISM.  345 

2.  The  reasoning  is  defective,  because  it  assumes  that  "  Lord  " 
and  "faith"  being  spoken  of  literally,  therefore  "baptism"  must 
be  spoken  of  physically.  This  is  an  error.  "Baptism  "  represents 
the  phrase  "  baptism  into  Christ,"  and  this  phrase  expresses  a 
reality  as  absolute  as  does  "  Lord  "  or  "  faith."  In  the  phrase 
"  faith  upon  Christ  "  (which  is  represented  by  "  faith  ")  there  is 
no  more  of  the  physical  than  there  is  in  "  baptism  into  Christ  " 
which  is  condensed  into  the  one  word  "  baptism." 

3.  A  third  error  is  in  the  assumption  of  U  baptism  into  water. 
There  is  no  such  thing  in  the  New  Testament.  Baptism,  with 
water  into  Christ,  s^'mbolizes  the  real  purification  effected  in  the 
baptism,  by  the  Holy  Ghost  into  Christ.  The  conclusion  falls 
with  the  unwarranted  assumption  on  which  it  rests.  And  the 
"  objection  "  remains,  namely :  According  to  the  theory  there  are 
two  baptisms  (the  one  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  other  in  water) 
which  enter  (Dr.  Dagg  seems  to  admit,  although  other  of  his 
friends  do  not)  into  the  constitution  of  Christianity ;  and  thus 
the  theory  is  placed  in  opposition  to  the  statement  by  Paul,  that 
Christianity  has  but  "  one  baptism." 

Dr.  Carson  (p.  212),  adopts  another  line  of  argument:  "We 
learn  from  Ephes.  4  ;  5  that  there  is  but  one  baptism.  Now,  as 
the  baptism  of  the  Commission  cannot  possibl}'  extend  to  infants, 
if  there  is  such  a  thing  as  infant  baptism,  there  must  be  two  bap- 
tisms. If  then  there  is  but  one  baptism,  there  can  be  no  infant 
baptism." 

This  logical  dart  we  catch  upon  our  shield  and  let  it  drop  into 
the  dust,  thus:  Baptism  into  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost  (the  "one 
baptism"  of  Christianity)  is  essential  to  salvation;  Infants,  by 
the  admission  of  Dr.  Carson,  receive  salvation  ;  therefore,  the 
baptism  of  the  Commission,  so  far  as  it  is  the  "  one  baptism  "  of 
Christianity,  does  apply  to  infants.  Or,  ad  hominem;  Baptism 
of  the  body  in  water,  cannot  possibly  identify  with  baptism  of 
the  soul  in  the  Holy  Ghost ;  therefore,  since  it  is  affirmed  that 
there  is  a  baptism  of  the  soul  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  if  there  be  such 
a  thing  as  a  baptism  of  the  body  in  water,  there  must  be  two  bap- 
tisms;  but  Paul  teaches  that  there  is  but  "one  baptism,"  there- 
fore, there  can  be  no  baptism  of  the  bodj^  in  water. 

R.  Ingham  (Christian  Baptism.^  p.  7,  London) :  "  Ephes.  4:5; 
'  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism  ;'  we  do  not  believe  that  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  is  here  meant,  from  the  fact  that  baptism  in  or 
by  water  was  the  instituted  and  well-known  ordinance  of  the  church 


346  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  Christ,  and  that  the  divine  Spirit  had  been  mentioned  in  the 
immediately  preceding  verse;  also  because  water  baptism  com- 
manded by  Christ,  and  practiced  and  enjoined  by  the  apostles, 
must  now  have  ceased,  if  the  apostle  here  refers  to  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit;  or  there  must  have  been  two  baptisms  ;  or  the  apos- 
tle must  have  been  guilty  of  an  omission,  nay,  of  a  misstatement, 
in  saying  that  there  was  '  one  baptism.'  To  consider  this  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  is,  we  think,  in  opposition  to  all  the  candid." 
The  reasons  for  this  conclusion  are:  1.  "Water  baptism  was 
the  instituted  and  well-known  ordinance  of  tiie  Church."  This 
reason  is  founded  in  the  error  that  water  baptism  constitutes  a 
wholly  distinct  and  diverse  baptism  from  that  baptism  which  is 
by  the  H0I3'  Ghost,  dislocating  "  water  "  from  its  divinely  ap- 
pointed relation  to  the  baptism  as  a  symbol  agency,  and  convert- 
ing it  into  (what  is  evei'y  way  impossible)  a  receiving  element.  2. 
''  The  divine  Spirit  had  been  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse." 
This  is  most  true ;  and  the  mention  is  most  adverse  to  the  con- 
clusion. "  There  is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit,"  is  the  statement ; 
and  this  statement  identides  itself,  most  unmistakably,  with  1 
Cor.  12 :  13,  "We  are  all  baptized  by  one  Spirit  into  one  body  ;" 
and  this  latter  statement  declares  one  universal  baptism  under 
Christianity  received  by  all  who  are  received  into  the  bod}'  of 
Christ,  which  baptism  is  by  the  divine  Spirit.  This  must  be  the 
"  one  baptism."  3.  "  If  this  be  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  water  bap- 
tism must  have  ceased."  This  is  not  an  alternative.  It  is  founded 
on  an  entire  misconception  of  the  rite,  as  noticed  in  "  1 ;"  4.  "Or 
there  must  have  been  two  baptisms."  Nor  is  this  an  alternative. 
There  is  no  second  baptism  in  the  rite  wholly  diverse  in  purport 
and  genus  from  the  baptism  effected  by  the  Hol,^'  Ghost.  This 
would  be  absurd.  Does  the  lamb  bleeding  on  the  altar  of  Abel 
and  Noah  and  Abraham  embody  truth  wholly  diverse  from  that 
exhibited  in  the  Lamb  of  God  bleeding  on  the  Cross?  Do  the 
bread  and  the  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper  embody  truth  wholly  di- 
verse from  that  in  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood  of  Christ 
received  by  faith  through  the  Holy  Ghost?  Were  the  purifyings 
of  Judaism  or  Heathenism  Iwo  purifyings,  or  sprinklings,  or  pour- 
ings, or  dippings,  or  washings,  or  one  purification,  effected  by 
essential  power  attributed  to  the  rite,  or  symbolizing  in  shadow 
what  a  higher  power  must  effect  in  reality?  A  rite  must,  in  its 
essence,  represent  a  higher  kindred  reality.  But  if  the  essence 
(that  without  which  it  cannot  be)  of  ritual  baptism  be  a  dipping 


ONE    BAPTISM.  347 

into  water,  then  there  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  higher  related 
truth  of  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  it  can  represent.  Nor 
is  there  anything  in  the  language  of  Scripture  to  justif}'  the  idea, 
that  Christian  baptism  is  a  dipping  into  water.  The  Scriptures 
teach,  that  after  the  Coming  One  baptism  would  be  b}'  the  Holy 
Ghost  "  into  repentance,"  "  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  "  into 
Jesus  Christ,"  and  it  is  a  pure  absurdity  to  imagine,  that  ritual 
baptism  would  be  another  and  diverse  baptism,  or  any  other  bap- 
tism more  or  less  than  this  same  baptism  symbolized.  Therefore 
John  says,  "  I  (udaTt)  symbolly,  baptize  j^ou  (si?  fj.e-dv<nav)  into  re- 
pentance ;"  this  is  all  that  I  can  do ;  but  there  cometh  after  me  a 
Mightier  One  who  can  and  "  who  will  baptize  you  (iv  Ilvtuij-a-t) 
divinely,  really,  into  repentance."  As  John  preached  a  real  bap- 
tism into  repentance  as  necessary  for  the  soul,  and  ritually  ad- 
ministered a  symbol  baptism  (with  water)  into  repentance  ;  so 
Christianity  preaches  the  necessity  for  the  real  baptism  of  the 
soul  into  Christ,  and  administers  a  sj^mbol  baptism  (with  water) 
"into  Christ." 

This  obvious  truth  is  recognized  by  Dr.  Pepper  (Prof,  of  Theol., 
Crozer  Bapt.  Theo.  Sem.)  in  his  work  on  Baptism  and  Communion^ 
p.  20  :  "  The  gospel  spoken  is  the  interpretation  of  the  gospel  era- 
bodied  in  ordinances.  Gospel  and  ordinances  are  the  same  thing 
in  two  forms  ;  in  the  form  of  words  and  in  the  form  of  deeds." 
This  precludes  "  two"  baptisms.  There  may  be  "one  baptism" 
under  two  forms ;  but  two  forms  of  one  baj^tism  can  never  con- 
stitute two  baptisms.  The  Scriptures  teach  "one  baptism  "  into 
Christ  under  two  forms,  1.  Real,  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  2.  Ritual,  by 
water.  The  alternative  presented  "  or  water  baptism  must  have 
ceased,"  is,  therefore,  groundless.  5.  "  Or  the  apostle  must  have 
been  guilty  of  an  omission,  na^^  of  a  misstatement."  This  is  only 
saying,  "  My  notions  about  baptism  are  right  or  the  Holy  Ghost 
by  whom  the  apostle  spoke  has  spoken  falsely."  Such  language 
is  utterly  inexcusable  from  any  man  under  any  circumstances.  A 
Roman  Catholic  priest  said  from  the  altar,  in  mj'^  hearing,  that 
what  he  had  been  preaching  was  the  truth,  and  if  he  were  to  be 
called  into  the  presence  of  God  and  God  were  to  say,  that  he  was 
in  error,  he  would  answer  God  by  declaring — "  Thou  art  the  Au- 
thor of  my  error. ''^  Is  not  this  blasphemy  ?  Dr.  Carson  not  onlj'- 
says :  "  If  the  angel  Gabriel  were  to  differ  from  him  as  to  the 
meaning  of  a  Greek  word,  he  would  '  order  him  to  school :'  "  but, 
that  inspired  writers  do  not  tell  the  truth  unless  his  interpreta- 


348  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

tions  of  Greek  are  true.  Any  man  who  thinks,  that  it  invests  his 
name  with  honor  or  his  argument  with  power,  to  compare,  depre- 
ciatingly, the  scholarship  of  Gabriel  with  his  own,  is  welcome  to 
do  it ;  but  when  Romish  priest,  or  Dr.  Carson,  or  R.  Ingham,  de- 
clares, under  any  contingency,  "  I  avi  true,  or  God  is  false  ;^^  the 
most  lenient  judgment  that  can  be  passed  is — He  has  lost  his  head. 

The  apostle  is  neither  "guilty  of  omission  or  of  misstatement." 
There  is  but  one  distinctive  baptism  of  Christianity  which  is  ^'■into 
Christ,"  being  really  accomplished  by  the  divine  Agent,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  ritually  symbolized  by  pure  water. 

Thus  the  error  of  Ingham  is  exposed  and  the  truth  of  Paul  is 
vindicated. 

Alexander  Campbell,  of  Bethany  (Design  of  Baptism,  p.  252) : 
"  Ephes.  4  :  5.  Now  if  there  be  but  one  baptism,  and  if  it  appear 
that  both  the  New  Testament  dispensations  of  baptism,  b}'  John 
and  by  the  Apostles,  clearly  affirm  a  connection  between  baptism 
and  the  remission  of  sins — must  it  not  follow  that  the  only  divinely 
instituted  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins  f  " 

The  logic  of  this  argumentation  may  be  commended  to  Dagg, 
and  Carson,  and  Ingham,  as  worth}^  to  be  laid  b}^  the  side  of 
their  own.  How  they  will  maintain  their  logical  "  one  dipping 
into  water,''''  and  escape  this  other  logical  "  one  dipping  into 
water  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  I  do  not  know.  For  myself, 
repudiating  the  dipping  into  water  as  more  foundationless  than 
a  dream  of  the  night,  I  accept  as  the  very  truth  of  God,  one 
divinely  appointed  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  "  into  Christ"  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  which  result  is  invariably  attendant  upon 
such  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  is  as  invariably  S3'mbolized 
by  the  ritual  administration  of  this  same  baptism. 

When  the  chaff  is  winnowed  from  the  wheat  this  logical  demon- 
stration evaporates. 

When  Paul  says,  there  is  "one  baptism  "  of  Christianity,  he 
cannot  mean  that  there  is  but  one  baptism  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  Christianity.  Such  baptisms  are,  in  fact,  very  many 
in  number  and  very  various  in  character.  Passing  by  the  men- 
tion of  Jewish  bai^tisms  which  appear  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
in  which  the  use  of  water  by  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  otherwise, 
was  probabl}^  the  same,  while  the  baptism  itself  was  wholly  di- 
verse in  character  from  every  baptism  under  Christianity  (being 


'£'y   ndTzna/ia.  349 

ceremonial  purification,  which  has  no  place  in  Christianity),  we 
have:  1.  Baptism  (st'?  iJ.zTWM)tav)  into  repentance;  2.  Baptism  {dq 
a<ps<nv  dij.apTiwv)  into  the  remission  of  sins  ;  3.  The  personal  cov- 
enant baptism  of  Christ,  "to  fulfil  all  righteousness;"  4.  The 
personal  baptism  of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost  "without  meas- 
ure," in  order  to  the  fulfihnent  of  this  covenant  engagement; 
5.  The  personal  baptism  of  Christ  in  the  actual  fulfilment  of  this 
covenant  engagement,  by  baptism  into  penal  death  upon  the 
Cross ;  6.  The  baptism  of  the  Apostles  by  the  Holy  Ghost  at 
Pentecost,  endowing  them  with  gifts  and  power  for  the  Apostle- 
ship;  7.  The  ritual,  symbol  baptism  of  the  Samaritans  "into  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus ; "  8.  The  baptism  of  Coi'nelius  and 
friends  by  the  Holy  Ghost  endowing  with  miraculous  gifts,  but 
diverse  from  the  kindred  baptizing  endowment  of  the  Apostles, 
in  that  these  gifts  were  not  such  as  to  qualify  for  the  Apostle- 
ship ;  9.  Baptism  into  Moses;  10.  Baptism  into  Paul;  11.  Bap- 
tism "  by  one  Spirit  into  one  body,"  including  regeneration  and 
endowment,  without  either  of  which  there  can  be  no  membership 
in  the  body  of  Christ ;  12.  Baptism  "  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  is  consequent 
upon  and  the  consummation  of  baptism  "  into  Christ." 

Here  are  twelve  baptisms  mentioned  in  connection  with  Chris- 
tianity, each  differing  in  some  material  respect  from  everj^  other, 
and  yet  all  agreeing  in  one  respect,  meeting  and  melting  together 
in  the  "one  baptism"  into  5%BV&  Christ. 

Could  proof  be  more  absolute,  that  while  Christianity  acknowl- 
edges that  there  are  a  thousand  lords,  she  teaches  that,  in  the 
highest  sense,  there  is  but  "one  Lord "=  Jesus  Christ;  and 
while  she  acknowledges,  that  there  are  ten  thousand  objects  of 
faith,  she  teaches  that  there  is '  transcendently  above  all  others, 
"one  Faith "  =  Mpo«  Jesus  Christ;  and  while  she  acknowledges 
that  there  are  multa  genera  baptismatum,  and  does  herself  present 
many  species,  yet  she  teaches,  that  all  her  promises  centre  in 
"  one  baptism "  =  info  Jesus  Christ,  which  sin-remitting  and 
soul-regenerating  baptism  is  both  preparative  for  and  causative 
of  that  ultimate,  endless,  and  amazing  baptism  into  the  Name 
of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  As  for  this  "one  baptism" 
being  a  dipping  into  water,  there  is  so  little  of  real  evidence  to 
sustain  such  idea,  that,  if  put  under  a  microscope  of  a  magnify- 
ing power  of  one  million  times  it  would  remain  still  invisible. 
Nothing  cannot  by  any  multiplication  be  made  something. 


350  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Con  oil .  Carthaginens. 

Demetrius  a  Septiminus  said ;  "  We  guard  the  one  baptism, 
because  we  claim  for  the  church  catholic  that  which  solely  be- 
longs to  her.  But  thej'  who  say  that  heretics  do  baptize  IvuXy 
and  legitimately,  they  make  not  one  but  many  baptisms.  For 
since  heresies  are  many,  baptisms  must  be  computed  according 
to  the  number  of  heresies." 

This  language  could  not  be  used  with  an}'  propriety  if  the 
"one  baptism  "  were  a  c?/ppi??gr  into  water.  The  multiplicity  of 
the  baptisms  turns  on  the  number  of  the  heresies.  But  no  one 
ever  imagined  that  every  heresy  had  a  different  way  of  dipping 
into  water.  The  different  baptisms,  then,  must  be  found  in  the 
diverse  doctrines  tauglit.  As  "  teaching  to  delight  in  pleasures 
and  lusts"  effected  a  baptism  of  its  own,  so,  teaching  any  partic- 
ular heresj'  effected  a  baptism  of  its  own.  These  heretical  bap- 
tisms were  not  various  dippings  into  water,  or  connected  with 
water  in  an}'  way,  but  with  teaching.  They  were  "  baptisms  of 
doctrine"  (Heb.  6:2). 

Jerome  (Comm.  in  loc),  XI,  831 :  "  Unum  corpus.,  et  unus 
spiritus.  .  .  .  Unus  Dominus,  una  Jides,  unum  baptit^ma.  Cum 
omnes  in  unum  corpus  baptizati,  eumdem  Spiritum  acceperint : 
Since  all  have  been  baptized  into  one  bod}'^,  they  receive  the  same 
Spirit." 

Jerome,  certainly,  did  not  regard  this  "  one  baptism  "  as  a  dip- 
ping into  water;  but  as  that  spiritual  baptism  which  all  Christians 
receive  being  "  baptized  by  one  Spirit  into  one  body." 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem:  The  creed  required  of  those  about  to  be 
baptized,  under  Cyril  Archbishop  of  Jerusalem,  has  for  its  ninth 
article,  this  :  "I  believe  in  (iv  fld-rifjim  iiszavoiaq  elq  anpzavj  d'j.apzimv'^ 
one  baptism  of  repentance  into  the  remission  of  sins  ; "  the  same 
as  in  the  Nicene  Creed. 

This  creed  is  not  indicative  of  a  faith  in  dipping  into  water  as 
the  "one  baptism."  Repentance  is  the  gift  of  God;  and  "a  bap- 
tism into  remission  of  sins,"  originating  in  repentance,  must  be 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Ignatius  (021)  says:  'Ev  (h  /.ai  to  /5«-r!f7//.a,  to  eli;  rvv  Oavamv  too 
Kvpwu  (i'.(i<>ij.Eviiv :  "  There  is  also  one  baptism,  that  which  is  given 
into  the  death  of  our  Lord."  Tliis  is,  by  eminence,  the  one  primal 
baptism  of  Christianity.  Ignatius  had  no  faith  in  water  dipping 
aa  the  "  one  baptism." 


DR.    PUSEY.  351 

Dr.  Pusey. 

PusEY  (Holy  Baptism,  p.  162)  says:  "'One  Lord;'  one  faith 
in  Him;  'one  Baptism'  iyito  Him;  and  so  into  God  the  Father 
who  is  above  all,  the  Author  of  all ;  God  the  Son  who  is  through 
all,  as  having  been  by  Him  created;  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is 
in  all"  .  .  .  (p.  163).  And  so  among  the  ancient  Fathers,  St. 
Gregory  of  Nazianzen :  "  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism. 
What  say  ye,  ye  destructive  baptists,  and  anabaptists  ?  Can  one 
be  spiritual  without  the  Spirit  ?  or  honoreth  he  who  is  ba{>tized 
into  one  created  and  a  fellow-servant?  Not  so,  not  so.  I  will 
not  belie  thee,  Unoriginated  Father;  I  will  not  belie  thee.  Only 
Begotten  Word ;  I  will  not  belie  thee.  Holy  Spirit.  I  know  whom 
1  have  confessed,  whom  renounced,  with  whom  been  united." 

In  a  note  it  is  stated :  "The  Eunomians  rebaptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Father  uncreated,  and  the  Son  created,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
created  by  the  created  Son." 

This  Eunomian  baptism  shows,  that  the  "  untrue  and  illegitimate 
baptisms  of  heretics"  did  not  consist  in  a  departure  from  a  dip- 
ping into  water,  but  in  a  "  baptism  of  doctrine  "  which  abandoned 
the  true  baptism  "  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Evidence  from  every  legitimate  source  rejects  the  idea,  that  this 
passage  has  any  reference  to  a  dipping  into  water,  and  confirms 
the  position,  that  it  is  purely  spiritual  in  all  of  its  elements. 

"One  Lord,"  Jesus  Christ;  "  One  faith,"  upon  Jesvs  Christ; 
"  One  baptism,"  into  Jesus  Christ. 


CHRISTIC  BAPTISM: 

PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  IK  WHICH  THERE  IS  SUP- 
POSED TO  BE  AN  ALLUSION  TO  BAPTISM. 

PURIFICATION. 

John  3  :  25. 

Tlepl  Kadapiajiov. 

"Then  there  arose  a  question  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and  the 
Jews  about  purifying." 

There  are  a  few  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  the  word 
baptism  does  not  occur  but  which  have,  very  general!}^,  been 
supposed  to  refer  to  it.  Among  these  there  are  some  which  have 
exerted  a  very  powerful  influence  in  moulding  doctrinal  views,  as 
involved  in  the  subject  of  baptism,  and,  also,  the  mode  of  admin- 
istering the  rite.  It  is,  therefore,  desirable  to  take  brief  notice 
of  some  of  these  passages. 

The  passage  now  to  be  considered  is  not  one  of  those  deeply- 
influential  passages,  and  yet  it  has  a  really  important  bearing  on 
the  subject,  and  justly  claims  attention. 

Diverse  Reading. 

There  is  a  diversity  of  reading  ("foudatou — 'foudaicu^),  as  to  the 
singular  or  plural  form  of  the  word  denoting  the  party  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  disciples  of  John.  The  Baptist  translation  adopts  the 
singular  form  ("with  a  Jew"),  and  in  the  Quarto  translation  with 
notes,  says:  "Almost  all  modern  translators  and  editors  regard 
this  as  the  true  reading.  All,  I  believe,  reject  ^/<>u3aiw^^  of  the 
Textus  Kecei)tus,  as  spurious."  Whether  the  singular  or  the  plural 
of  this  word  be  adopted  is  a  matter  of  no  essential  moment;  but 
so  long  as  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  presents  tlie  plural  form  the 
Textus  Keceptiis  may  be  allowed  to  stand.  The  translator  adds 
farther:  "I  confess  that  I  consider  the  conjectural  emendation 
of  Bentley,  adopted  by  Penn  {frjffou),  sustained  by  an  overwhelm- 
(  352  ) 


"about  purifying."  353 

iug  weight  of  internal  evidence;  but,  as  there  is,  as  far  as  known, 
no  manuscriptal  authority  for  this  reading,  I  dare  not  recommend 
its  adoption.''  Markland  agrees  with  Bentley  and  others,  in  the 
change  suggested  ;  but  the  reasons  assigned  (from  internal  evi- 
dence) is  no  more  satisfactory  than  that  from  external  evidence, 
which  is  confessed  to  be,  nothing. 

If  the  discussion  be  made  to  take  place  between  the  disciples 
of  John  and  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  the  entire  statement  of  the 
Scripture  is  revolutionized,  and  instead  of  a  discussion  respect- 
ing purification,  we  have  a  discussion  respecting  the  comparative 
personal  merits  of  John  and  Jesus  :  "The  disciples  of  John  must 
have  felt  their  vanity  wounded  while  the  Jew,  probably,  gave  it 
as  his  opinion,  that  the  baptism  of  Jesus  was  more  effectual  than 
that  of  John"  (Olshausen);  "The  Jews  resorted  to  Jesus,  while 
the  disciples  of  John  were  contending,  that  purifying  ought  to  be 
sought  from  John  "  (Bengel) ;  "  The  Jews,  doubtless,  had  been 
baptized  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  and  preferred  that  baptism  to 
John's"  (Bloomfield).  These  interpx'etations  depart  essentially 
from  the  Scripture  record  in  two  radical  particulars  :  1.  In  chang- 
ing the  discussion  from  {-J^epi  y.adapt.(TiJ.oo)  "  purification "  to  the 
personal  merits  of  John  and  Jesus,  for  which  there  was  no  ground, 
as  the  testimony  of  John  had  been  clear  and  profound,  from  the 
beginning,  on  that  point;  and  as  to  the  comparative  value  of  the 
baptism  administered  b}^  John  and  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus  ("  for 
Jesus  himself  baptized  not ")  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  of 
2iny  diversity  existing  or  being  supposed  to  exist;  2.  The  conver- 
sion of  "the  Jews,"  or  of  "the  Jew,"  into  disciples  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  is  destitute  of  all  Scripture  warrant.  It  is  incredi- 
ble that  the  disciples  of  Jesus  would  be  designated  as  "Jews"  in 
contradistinction  from  the  disciples  of  John.  And  as  for  the 
substitution  of  Jesus  for  "Jew"  in  the  text  (in  opposition  to  all 
MSS.  and  construction)  this  arguing  in  a  circle  is  presented. 
The  true  text  is  "  Jesus,"  because  the  discussion  was  between  the 
disciples  of  John  and  of  Jesus,  and  the  discussion  was  between 
the  disciples  of  John  and  of  Jesus,  because  the  true  text  is 
"  Jesus." 

We  must  look  for  something  better  than  this. 

"  About  Purifying^ 

We  take  the  text  as  it  stands  (substantially  the  same  whether 

23 


354  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

"  Jews "  or  Jeit;) :  "There  arose  a  question  from  among  the  dis- 
ciples of  John  with  some  Jews  about  purifying." 

Tiiat  such  a  question  should  arise  between  these  parties  was 
not  only  natural,  but  was  one  which  could  by  no  possibility  be 
escaped.  The  Jews  had  their  "purifyings"  before  John's  mis- 
sion or  birtli.  They  had  a  sharply  defined  character  and  met  with 
universal  acceptance.  The  true  nature  of  Jewish  purifyings  was 
a  ceremonial  purification  ;  but  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the 
popular  mind  rested  in  this  as  its  whole  value,  or  did  not  fail  to 
see  beyond  this  a  higher  purification  (spiritual)  still  remaining. 
In  the  midst  of  this  condition  of  things  John  came  preaching  an 
exclusively  spiritual  purification,  one  relating  to  tlie  soul  and  not 
to  the  body  ;  to  be  effected  by  repentance  and  not  by  water.  I 
sa}'  this  was  an  exclusively  spiritual  i)urification,  because  the  rite 
which  was  associated  with  it  was  not  of  the  nature  of  Jewish 
purifying  rites',  it  purified  nothing;  it  was  only  a  symbol  of  the 
spiritual  purification.  Jewish  purifyings,  on  the  contrar}^,  had 
an  essential  power  to  effect  the  purification  for  wliich  they  were 
appointed,  namely,  to  remove  ceremonial  defilement  and  estab- 
lish ceremonial  purification.  These  characteristics  seem  to  be 
brought  to  view  bj'  the  language  of  Josephus  (Jew.  Ant.,  xviii, 
62).  "  John  exhorted  the  Jews  to  cultivate  virtue  and  observing 
uprightness  toward  one  another,  and  piety  toward  God,  to  come 
(fiaTTrtfT/jM)  for  baptizing ;  for  thus  (fidnritrr^')  the  baptizing  would 
appear  acceptable  to  him,  not  using  it  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
but  for  purity  of  the  body,  provided,  that  the  soul  has  been  pre- 
viously (j:f)o£.y.y.£/.aOap!J.ivrj^)  purified  by  righteousness." 

In  this  statement  .Iosei)lius  announces  very  clearly  the  spiritual 
purification  witli  its  fruits,  as  preached  by  John.  He  seems  to 
imi)ly,  that  John  charged  the  Jews  with  using  their  purifyings  to 
obtain  the  remission  of  sins,  and  tauglit  tiieir  unacceptableness 
to  God  for  any  such  purpose;  while  he  declared  that  the  rite  he 
introduced  would  be  acceptable  to  God,  not  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  but  as  a  symbol  of  i)urity,  "  when  the  soul  had  first  been 
purified  (dv/.auinnvri)  by  righteousness,"  and  not  by  water. 

Now,  it  was  precisely  this  preaching  of  John  which  antagonized 
Jewish  ceremonial  purification,  and  which  necessitated  "a  ques- 
tion aljout  purifying  "  between  tliose  Jews  who  accepted  John's 
teaching  and  those  Jews  who,  rejecting  it  maintained  the  suffi- 
ciency of  their  old  purif^yings. 

KoJhiptffiLin)^  has  greater  breadth  than  the  fidrzziff/jjn;^  ceremonial 


BORN    OF    WATER    AND    THE    SPIRIT.  355 

purifying,  of  the  Jew,  or  the  ^drcrt(Tixa  fisra'^naz^  spiritual  purifica- 
tion of  John;  and  is  therefore,  here,  properly  used,  in  its  generic 
character,  to  include  both.  It  is  capable,  in  proper  circumstances, 
of  being  used  when  either  specific  idea  is  designed  to  be  ex- 
pressed ;  and  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  so  used  abundantl3\ 

This    discussion,   then,  was  as    the   Scriptures  declare,   most 
strictly  "  about  purifying." 


REGENERATION. 
John  3  : 5. 


'AjU^v  afifiv  Myu  aoi,  'Eav  [ijj  Tig  yevvT^dy  t^  vSarog  koI  TLvevfinToc,  ov  dvvarai 
e'laeAdelv  elg  ttjv  jiaaiAeiav  tov  Oeov, 

"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 

Historical  Fact. 

This  passage  of  Scripture  has,  b^'  the  interpretation  given  to  it, 
more  profoundly  moulded  the  conception  of  Christian  ritual  bap- 
tism than  any  or  all  other  passages  beside.  At  a  very  early  period 
it  was  quoted  as  bearing  on  this  rite,  and  very  soon  it  was 
accepted  as  expounding  its  nature  and  value.  Regeneration  was 
supposed  to  be  the  result  of  the  co-action  of  the  water  and  the 
Holy  Spirit.  On  this  there  was  a  very  wide  agreement  perpetu- 
ated through  more  than  a  thousand  years. 

There  was  but  little  attempt  to  make  such  a  view  accord  with 
the  teaching  of  other  passages  of  Scripture ;  or  to  make  a  ritual 
regeneration  harmonize  with  their  own  oftentimes  eminently 
spiritual  views  of  truth  and  the  way  of  salvation. 

Interpretation. 

It  is  not  easy  to  make  a  brief  statement  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion as  the  faith  of  these  early  Christians  without  doing  injustice 
to  their  general  faith  and  Christian  life. 

The  belief,  that  the  soul  is  regenerated  and  sins  remitted  bi/  a 
RITE  is  so  whoUj'  alien  from  the  entire  spirit  of  tlie  Christian 
system,  that  it   seems    impossible    that  the  two    could  be    held 


356  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

together.  And  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  they  cannot,  consist- 
ently, be  so  held.  And  they  were  not  by  these  Christians.  There 
was  so  much  of  truth  and  duty  required  before  this  rite  could  be 
received,  and  there  was  so  much  truth  coincident  with  it,  and 
subsequent  to  it,  that  the  error  as  to  the  power  of  the  rite  was 
greatl}'  lost  in  encompassing  truth.  To  hold  such  a  radical  error 
in  connection  with  the  Christian  S3'stem  without  constant  prac- 
tical embarrassment  and  the  necessity  for  adjustment,  is  no  more 
possible,  than  to  hold  that  the  earth  is  the  centre  of  the  solar 
system  without  being  compelled  to  call  in  aid  to  meet  constantly 
emerging  difficulties. 

Repentance  and  faith  were  required  before  baptism ;  so  that 
the}^  were  scripturally  regenerated  before  they  were  baptismally 
regenerated.  And  for  sins  committed  after  baptism  repentance 
was  necessary  or  the  baptismal  regeneration  lost  its  efficacy. 
Truth  under  such  circumstances  largely  nullified  the  error.  Still, 
it  is  most  true,  that  such  an  error  cannot  be  held  under  any  cir- 
cumstances without  most  pernicious  results. 

Dr.  Pusey. 

None  can  be  supposed  better  qualified  to  give  a  just  and  clear 
statement  as  to  what  is  "Baptismal  regeneration  "  than  Dr. Pusey. 
But  he  says  (pp.  21,  39):  "While  this  is  easy  in  some  respects, 
it  is  not  easy  in  others.  The  difficulty  is  twofold:  First,  from  its 
being  a  mystery;  Secondly,  from  men  being  in  these  daj's  inclined 
to  lower  that  mystery."  But  these  reasons  are  not  adequate  ex- 
planations of  the  facts.  The  true  cause  of  the  difficulty  is  in  the 
essential  impracticability  of  adjusting  so  serious  an  error  with  the 
obvious  truths  of  the  Christian  system.  Dr.  Pusey  adds:  "Nico- 
demns  asked,  How  can  these  things  be?  and  most  of  our  questions 
about  Baptismal  Regeneration  are  Nicodemus's  questions.  We 
know  it  in  its  author,  God  ;  in  its  instrument,  Baptism ;  in  its 
end,  salvation,  union  with  Christ,  sonship  to  God,  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come." 

If  this  can  be  said,  in  any  rational  sense,  to  be  the  end  secured 
by  ritual  baptism,  then  what  need  of  preaching  the  gospel,  or 
doing  anything  else,  than  to  go  through  the  world  ritually  bap- 
tizing men?  Any  answer  to  this  question  which  brings  in  the 
necessity  for  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  prayer,  and  repent- 
ance, and  faith,  is  a  pure  abandonment  of  the  position — "  the 


DR.    PUSEY.  357 

instrument  is  Baptism ;  and  its  end  is  union  to  Christ,  and  sal- 
vation." 

It  is  farther  said :  "  One  may  then  define  regeneration  to  be 
that  act  whereby  God  takes  us  out  of  our  relation  to  Adam,  and 
makes  us  actual  members  of  his  Sou,  and  so  His  sons,  and  heirs 
of  God  through  Christ.  This  is  our  new  birth,  an  actual  birth  of 
God,  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  as  we  were  actually  born  of  our 
natural  parents ;  herein  then  also  are  we  justified,  or  both  ac- 
counted and  made  righteous,  since  we  are  made  members  of  him 
who  is  alone  righteous ;  freed  from  past  sin,  whether  original  or 
actual ;  have  a  new  principle  of  life  imparted  to  us,  since  having 
been  made  members  of  Clirist,  we  have  a  portion  of  his  life,  or  of 
Him  who  is  our  life ;  herein  also  we  have  the  hope  of  the  resurrec- 
tion and  of  immortality,  because  we  have  been  made  partakers 
of  his  resurrection,  and  have  risen  again  with  Him." 

"Our  birth  (when  the  direct  means  are  spoken  of)  is  attributed 
to  the  Baptism  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  and  to  that  onl3\  Had 
our  new  birth  in  one  passage  only  been  connected  with  Baptism 
and  had  it  in  five  hundred  passages  been  spoken  of  in  connec- 
tion with  other  causes,  still  the  truth  in  Holy  Scripture  is  not 
less  God's  truth  because  contained  in  one  passage  only.  .  .  .  There 
is  no  hint  that  Regeneration  can  be  obtained  in  any  way  but  by 
Baptism,  or  if  totally  lost  could  be  restored.  ...  A  commence- 
ment of  life  in  Christ  after  baptism  is  as  little  consonant  with  the 
general  representations  of  Scripture,  as  a  commencement  of  phys- 
ical life  long  after  our  natural  birth  is  with  the  order  of  his  provi- 
dence. .  .  .  The  Christian  church  uniformly,  for  fifteen  centuries, 
interpreted  these  words  (John  3:5)  of  Baptism;  on  the  ground 
of  this  text  alone  they  urged  the  necessity  of  Baptism  ;  upon  it, 
mainly,  they  identified  regeneration  with  Baptism.  If,  then,  this 
be  an  error,  would  our  Saviour  have  used  words  which  (since 
water  was  already  used  in  the  Jews'  and  John's  baptism)  must 
inevitably  and  did  lead  his  Church  into  error?  One  should  think 
that  the  words  'of  water'  (upon  which  in  his  immediate  converse 
with  Nicodemus  the  Saviour  does  not  dwell)  were  added  with  the 
very  view  that  his  Church  should  thence  learn  the  truth,  which 
she  has  transmitted — that  '  regeneration  '  is  the  gift  of  God,  in 
this  life,  in  Baptism  only.  The  misuse  of  this  text  has  ended  in 
the  scarcely  disguised  indiflerence  or  contempt  of  an  ordinance 
of  our  Saviour." 


358  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


Analogy  of  Faith. 

This  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  "  Baptismal  Regeneration  " 
places  it  in  bold  and  Irreconcilable  antagonism  with  the  Analogy 
of  the  Christian  Faith.  A  claim  is  made  for  water,  a  physical 
element,  as  an  efficient  cause  in  the  remission  of  sins  and  in  the 
spiritual  regeneration  of  the  sonl.  This  introduces  a  foreign 
element  into  the  otherwise  spiritual  agencies  of  the  Christian 
system.  And  in  particular  it  antagonizes  the  principle  laid  down 
by  the  Saviour,  in  this  connection,  "  That  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit ;" 
according  to  which  principle,  that  which  is  born  of  (receives  its 
existence  from)  any  ph^'sical  substance,  must  partake  of  the 
characteristics  of  that  substance.  But  in  water  there  is  no  quality 
which  could  originate  the  remission  of  sins  or  a  spiritual  regen- 
eration. And  in  accordance  with  this  principle,  John  preached 
repentance  with  the  promise  of  the  remission  of  sins;  the  Saviour 
commanded  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  to  be  preached 
among  all  people ;  he  himself  preached,  "  Except  ye  repent  ye 
shall  all  likewise  perish ;"  Peter  preached  both  reijentance  and 
faith  as  the  essential  elements  requisite  for  the  remission  of  sins ; 
Paul  preached  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt 
be  saved ;"  and  so,  "  Being  born  again  of  incorruptible  seed,  by 
the  word  of  God ;"  "  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  Gospel ;" 
"  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  by  the  word  of  truth."  These 
agencies  exhibit  dlversitj'  with  unity.  They  are  spiritual  and 
therefore  capable  of  giving  birth  to  spiritual  results ;  but  they  all 
differ  in  this  respect  from  water,  and  therefore  by  principle  of 
nature,  as  well  as  by  the  Analogy  of  Faith,  it  is  excluded  from 
the  Christian  system  as  causative  of  spiritual  results. 

Baidism. 

Dr.  Pusey  very  frequently  uses  "  Baptism  "  as  though  it  were 
in  the  passage.  It  is  not  there,  and  it  cannot  be  put  into  it ;  for 
the  question  at  issue  is  as  to  its  right  to  be  there.  What  the 
Scriptures  sa}^  directly  of  baptism  forbids  any  sucli  interpretation 
of  "water"  in  this  passage  as  is  assigned  to  it  under  the  claim 
that  it  represents  ritual  baptism.  John  assigns  to  water  a  very 
subordinate  place  in  the  ritual  baptism  into  repentance,  saying, 
"  I  indeed  baptize  you  with   water  into   repentance,  but  there 


BORN    OF    WATER    AND    THE    SPIRIT.  359 

cometli  one  after  me  mightier  than  I,  He  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost."  He  places  a  great  gulf  between  baptism  with 
water  and  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  disciples  of  Christ 
baptized  symbolly  with  water,  while  he  did  not,  but  reserved  to 
himself  the  real  baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  When  "the  promise 
of  the  Spirit  had  been  received,"  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  baptized 
by  the  Spirit,  only,  at  Pentecost,  and  not  with  an}^  commingling 
of  loater.  Cornelius  was  baptized  by  the  Spirit,  simply,  by  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  afterward  by  w^ater,  simpl}-,  by  Peter. 
The  Samaritans  were  baptized  by  Philip  with  water,  simply,  and 
afterward,  through  Peter,  received  special  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Simon  Magus  was  baptized  with  water,  and  yet  he  remained  un- 
regenerate,  "  his  heart  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God,"  and  Re- 
pentance was  held  out  to  him  as  the  only  hope  of  the  forgiveness 
of  sin  and  the  regeneration  of  his  soul.  The  thief  upon  the  cross 
was  not  baptized  with  water,  but  did  repent,  and  did  believe,  and 
was  made  regenerate,  so  that  he  did  "  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God."  Paul  said  that  "  he  was  not  sent  to  baptize  with  water, 
but  to  preach  the  Gospel,"  which  he  never  could  have  said  if 
Baptism  with  water  is  the  way  to  remit  sin,  to  regenerate  the 
soul,  to  ingraft  into  Christ,  and  to  make  sons  of  God,  and  not  by 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  For  Paul  declares  (Acts  26  :  15-18) 
that  he  was  sent  "  To  open  the  e3^es  of  the  Gentiles,  and  to  turn 
them  from  darkness  tb  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  to  God, 
that  the}^  might  receive  forgiveness  of  sins  and  inheritance  among 
them  that  are  sanctified  through  faith  in  Christ."  The  baptismal 
power  ascribed  to  water  in  John  3 :  5,  to  remit  sins  and  to  regen- 
erate souls,  must  go  down  before  truths  and  facts  like  these. 

Elements  of  Interpretation. 

The  true  interpretation  of  a  passage  is  oftentimes  hopelessly 
obscured  by  its  dislocation  from  the  time,  and  place,  and  person, 
and  circumstance,  out  of  which  it  sprang ;  and  an  attempt  to  ad- 
just it  with  times,  and  places,  and  persons,  and  circumstances, 
which  are  foreign  to  its  origin.  The  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage has  been  thus  embarrassed.  Its  deeply  Jewish  surroundings 
have  been  ignored ;  and  it  has  not  only  been  brought  into  Chris- 
tianity and  its  colorings,  but  is  made  to  utter  the  profoundest  tone 
sounding  throughout  all  her  teachings  and  controlling  doctrinal 
utterances.     Let  us,  then,   restore  this  passage  to  its  divinely 


360  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

established  affiliations  and  see  whether  mnch,  if  not  all,  of  em- 
barrassment in  its  interpretation  will  not  be  removed. 

1.  These  words  were  spoken  in  the  midst  of  Judaism.  The 
entire  life  and  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  were  within  the 
Jewish  economy.  All  of  its  rites  and  ceremonies,  as  divinelj^  ap- 
pointed, were  in  legitimate  existence.  These  divinel}^  appointed 
rites  had  greatly  suffered  both  from  misinterpretation  and  by 
human  additions ;  through  which  their  worship  was  made  vain, 
"  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men."  In  these 
circumstances,  while  teachings  that  look  beyond  Judaism  may  be 
expected,  yet  it  is  most  evidently  true,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
is  singularly  reticent  as  to  the  future,  and  slow  to  lift  the  veil  from 
the  individual  peculiarities  of  the  coming  dispensation.  As  might 
be  anticipated,  our  Lord  was  largely  engaged  in  meeting  issues 
which  were  crowding  around  him,  and  in  so  doing  establishing 
principles  for  all  ages.  It  would  then  be  most  remarkable,  if  in 
the  midst  of  Judaism,  and  in  a  private  interview  with  a  Jew 
steeped  in  Judaism,  the  Saviour  had,  at  a  bound,  passed  beyond 
this  peculiar  atmosphere,  and  announced  a  truth  kept  hidden 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  which  was  to  reign  with 
regal  supremacy  and  splendor  in  another  dispensation,  to  wit: 
that  WATER  was  the  essential  means  chosen  of  God  to  remit  sins, 
to  regenerate  the  soul,  to  reconcile  to  Himself,  and  to  introduce 
into  life  everlasting !  Such  announcement,  under  such  circum- 
stances, is  not  what  we  would  look  for.  It  sounds  more  like  the 
projection  of  Jewish  errors  intensified  to  the  last  degree,  into  the 
new  dispensation,  rather  than  a  correction  of  the  disposition  "  to 
make  clean  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  the  platter." 

2.  These  words  were  spoken  b}^  Him  whom  John  liad  forean- 
nounced  as  the  Baptizer  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  John  had,  by  his 
ministr^r,  introduced  an  element  in  the  most  absolute  antagonism 
with  the  perverted  notions  of  the  value  of  Jewish  rites,  as  well  as 
with  the  end  for  which  others  had,  by  superstition,  been  added  to 
them.  This  element  was  a  spiritual  baptism  purifying  the  soul 
by  repentance,  without  which  water  washings,  with  their  ceremo- 
nial purifications,  were  worthless.  Such  teaching  could  not  but 
awaken  attention,  beget  discussion,  and  induce  opposition.  There 
was  a  widespread  and  profound  movement  among  the  people  ; 
there  was  "  a  discussion  between  the  disciples  of  John  and  the 
Jews  about  purifying ;"  there  was  a  rejection  of  his  spiritual  bap- 
tism and  an  adherence  to  their  water  washings  by  many,  and  there 


BORN    OF    WATER    AND    THE    SPIRIT.  361 

was  a  rejection  by  John,  of  others  who  came  without  apprehend- 
ing the  true  nature  of  this  spiritual  baptism,  and  in  their  old  spirit 
sought  to  add  another  water  washing  to  their  already  extended 
list. 

This  standard  of  spiritual  baptism,  accompanied  and  illustrated 
by  symbol  water,  was  lifted  up  by  John  in  antagonism  to  the 
popular  water  washings,  and  as  the  true  exposition  of  those  puri- 
fying rites  established  in  the  Jewish  economy.  And  this  was 
done  with  the  declared  design  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  Coming 
One  whose  baptism  was  to  be  exclusively  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
the  rejection  not  only  of  human  water  washings  (which  effected 
nothing,  but  the  increase  of  sin)  but,  also,  of  Jewish  w^ater  rites 
which  did,  by  divine  appointment,  effect  ceremonial  purification ; 
for  the  water  under  the  new  dispensation  was  no  longer  to  effect 
a  purification  of  any  kind,  but  merely  to  be  used  as  a  symbol  of 
that  purification  effected  by  a  crucified  and  atoning  Redeemer 
through  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  now  this  divine  Baptizer,  who  was 
foretold  and  whose  coming  has  been  thus  prepared,  has  come,  and 
the  text  introduces  us  into  his  presence,  and  into  that  of  one 
other,  who  is  his  sole  auditor.  Who  that  auditor  is,  it  is  impor- 
tant for  us  to  know. 

3.  These  words  of  the  Baptizer  by  the  Holy  Ghost  are  spoken 
to  a  Jew,  to  a  Ruler  of  the  Jews,  to  a  Teacher  of  the  Jews,  to  a 
Pharisee  of  the  Jews,  to  a  Jew,  therefore,  of  the  intensest  type. 

There  is  every  probability  that  this  Jew  had  rejected  the  spiritual 
baptism  of  John,  as  subordinating  Jewish  rites  and  teaching  that 
they  were  of  no  essential  spiritual  value.  This  is  probable,  be- 
cause he  was  not  merely  a  Jew,  and  a  Ruler,  and  a  Teacher,  but 
because  he  was  a  Pharisee.  The  Pharisees  were  "the  straitest 
sect "  of  the  Jewish  religion  (Acts  26  :  5)  ;  they  were  characterized 
by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  himself  (Matt.  23:25),  as  "making 
clean  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  of  the  platter,  while  within 
they  were  full  of  extortion  and  excess ;"  he  commanded  them 
(v.  26),  "to  cleanse  j^r.s^  that  which  is  within  the  cup  and  plattei*, 
that  the  outside  of  them  may  be  clean  also."  It  is  certain,  that 
the  Pharisees,  as  a  class,  did  reject  this  spiritual  baptism,  of  John 
(Luke  7  :  30) — "The  Pharisees  rejected  the  counsel  of  God  against 
themselves,  not  being  baptized  of  John."  It  is  morally  certain, 
that  this  Jew  had  not  accepted  the  teaching  of  John  because  of 
adherence  to  misunderstood  divinely  appointed  Jewish  rites,  or 
because  of  the  acceptance  of  such  as  had  been  humanly  estab- 


362  CHRIsflC    BAPTISM. 

lished ;  possibly  for  both  reasons.  What,  now,  to  such  a  Jew 
would  be  the  teaching  of  the  Lord  Jesns  Christ  ?  Would  he 
ignore  tliat  man's  state  of  mind  ?  Would  he  repudiate  the  teach- 
ing of  John  which  had  prepared  the  way  for  his  own  coming  as 
the  Great  and  exclusively  spiritual  Baptizer?  Would  he  point  to 
a  future  dispensation,  announcing  a  truth  without  an}^  practical 
bearing  upon  the  case  of  the  earnest  inquirer  before  Him  ?  Do 
not  such  questions  answer  themselves  ?  Suppose  it  to  be  true, 
that  under  Christianity  water  was  to  be  the  means  for  washing 
awa}'  sin  and  regenerating  the  soul,  what  is  that  to  Nicodemus? 
He  is  not  under  Christianity,  nor  within  the  reach  of  such  wonder- 
working water.  It  is  an  anachronism  to  apply  such  water  of 
Christianity  to  the  case  of  this  Jew.  He  wants  knowledge  for 
his  own  case.  He  wants  salvation  for  his  own  soul.  He  wants  a 
passage-way  which  he  can  tread  and  "enter  the  kingdom  of  God." 
If  this  "  water  "  be  that  water  which  is  to  be  impregnated  with 
singular  virtues  under  Christianity,  then,  it  is  not  the  water  for 
the  Jew  Nicodemus.  The  exigency  of  the  case  requires  the  dis- 
missal of  any  such  aspect  attributed  to  this  water. 

Is  there  a  reference  to  "the  water"  as  used  by  John?  There 
cannot  be :  1.  Because  those  who  attach  such  power  to  water  under 
Christianity  are  earnest  in  their  denial  of  it  to  the  water  used  by 
John  ;  2.  Because  no  such  power  belonged,  in  fact,  to  the  water 
of  the  baptism  of  John.  He  repudiates  it  himself.  He  denies  to 
it  any  spiritual  power.  He  contrasts  it  with  the  spiritual  baptism 
of  his  coming  Ijord.  It  is  a  moral  impossibility  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  could  associate  this  water  with  the  divine  Spirit,  as 
necessary  to  salvation. 

There  remains  for  consideration  but  one  other  religious  use 
of  water  to  which  the  language  of  the  Saviour  could  refer, — the 
divinely  appointed  Jewish  use. 

To  this  every  consideration  points  as  alone  meeting  the  de- 
mands of  the  case.  Nicodemus  lived  under  the  Jewish  rites 
with  the  full  obligation  to  observe  them.  He  did  in  fact  so  ob- 
serve them.  He  refused  to  accept  John's  spiritual  teaching  which 
threw  so  deep  a  shadow  over  the  rites  he  had  vahied.  But  his 
conscience  was  not  at  rest';  and  no  multiplicity  of  his  water 
washings  had  brought  to  him  peace.  In  this  state  of  mind  he 
comes  for  light  to  Jesus.  And  Jesus  meets  him  with  the  evi- 
dence that  his  case  is  all  known  to  him  by  the  declaration,  that 
he  "  must  be  born  again,"  and  born  again  not  only  by  the  use 


BORN    OF    WATER    AND    THE    SPIRIT.  363 

of  water  (which  he  acknowledged,  but  which  had  power  only  to 
renew  externally  and  ceremonially,  without  reaching  to  the  con- 
science as  stated,  Heb,  9:9-14,  of  "divers  washings")  but  by 
the  Spirit;  which  he  did  not  acknowledge,  or  which  was  so  over- 
laid by  "water"  as  to  be  inoperative,  and  therefore  had  led  to 
the  rejection  of  John's  baptism,  not  as  it  was  a  symbol  baptism 
with  water,  but  as  it  was  a  real  spiritual  baptism  by  repentance. 
The  Saviour  knowing  all  hearts,  recognizes  the  mind  of  Nico- 
demus  resting  on  "the  water  of  purification"  in  Judaism,  and 
passes  no  condemnation  on  it ;  but  he  accepts  it  at  its  true  value, 
a  necessary  Jewish  observance  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
adds :  however  right  and  valuable  and  necessarj^  tliis  may  be  to 
you,  there  is  another  necessity^  more  absolute^  which  you  have  re- 
jected in  rejecting  the  baptism  of  John — the  iSd-rctr/j.a  iisravolaq 
eiq  a<fE<7iv  a;j.apTimv^  which  is  my  baptism  and  which  I  baptize  h 
Ihenimri  'Aytuj  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  purifies  the  soul,  recon- 
ciles to  God  and  introduces  into  his  everlasting  kingdom.  To  be 
born  of  water  and  Spirit  is  for  Nicodemus  to  be  cleansed  exter- 
nally (Jewishl}^)  and  internally  (by  the  Spirit);  wliich  means  for 
all  men  that  they  must  be  completely  cleansed,  body  and  soul. 

Such  interpretation  meets  the  specialties  of  the  case  of  Nico- 
demus,  as  a  Jew,  as  a  Pliarisee,  and  as  troubled  in  conscience, 
after  having  exhausted  the  power  of  ceremonial  purifications  in 
search  of  peace.  It  meets  the  peculiarity  of  the  time  as  agitated 
by  that  new  element  thrown  into  it  b}'^  the  preaching  of  John. 
No  element,  more  alien  or  more  disturbing  to  the  spirit  of  that 
generation,  could  have  been  introduced  among  them  than  a  repent- 
ance baptism  (=  internal  purification)  as  contrasted  with  cere- 
monial baptisms  (=  external  purification)  in  preparing  for  the 
kingdom  of  God.  There  was  a  profound  agitation  among  the 
people.  This  visit  of  Nicodemus  was  evidence  of  it.  The  words 
of  the  Saviour  reveal  his  state  of  mind  far  better  than  his  own 
words.  His  case  appears,  very  clearly,  to  be  a  specific  illustra- 
tion of  the  general  statement  in  v.  25,  namelj^,  an  awakened  con- 
science struggling  against  the  truth,  that  mere  water  washings 
cannot  fit  for  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  Beyond  all  type  or  symbol 
purify ings  there  remains  the  purifying  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  the 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  interpretation  accords  with 
the  mission  of  John  and  with  the  character  of  the  Messiah  and 
his  kingdom,  as  announced  by  him.  John  made  no  war  against 
Jewish  rites.     He  gave  to  them  their  divinely  assigned  value  and 


364  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

preached  their  antitype  truth,  the  purification  of  the  soul  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  John's  Lord  did  not  come  to  destroy  the  Law,  nor 
to  announce  the  abrogation  of  Jewish  water  washing  as  divinely 
appointed;  but  to  fulfil  by  presenting  himself  as  the  antitype 
Lamb,  and  to  confer  antitype  baptism  by  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Therefore,  he  does  not  condemn  the  Jewish  typical 
use  of  water,  but  teaches,  that  unless  with  this  there  be  associated 
the  antitypical  ivashing  by  the  Holy  Sjnrit  there  is  no  entrance 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  The  language  of  the  Saviour  does  not 
require  that  the  necessity  for  Jewish  water  and  for  the  Holy 
Spirit,  should  be  the  same ;  but  that,  however  necessary  or  effica- 
cious ritual  water  might  be  to  Nicodemus,  it  neither  fulfilled  nor 
superseded  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Having  thus  met  the 
Jewish  difficulties  of  Nicodemus  by  granting  all  that  could  be 
justly  asked,  the  Saviour  says  no  more  of  water  as  qualifying  for 
entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  speaks  of  regeneration 
by  the  Spirit,  onl}^  And  this  phase  of  the  interview  and  its 
teaching  looks  Christianity- ward.  There  was  a  power  and  a 
necessity  for  "  water  "  under  the  Jewish  economy  that  has  no 
place  under  Christianity.  The  Jewish  water  of  purification  had 
by  divine  ordinance  an  essential  power  to  purify  ceremonially. 
And  without  such  purification  the  ceremonially  defiled  could  not 
enter  into  the  religious  assembly.  It  was  therefore,  in  its  place 
and  for  its  purpose,  an  impeuative  necessity.  But  under  Chris- 
tianity there  is  no  ceremonial  defilement  and  therefore  there  is  no 
ceremonially  purifying  water.  The  water  as  now  used,  has  only 
a  symbol  power ;  the  power  to  symbolize  the  purification  which  is 
eff"ected  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  therefore,  it  cannot  be  said 
under  Christianit}',  as  under  Judaism,  "  Except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  "  (which  is  ordained  of  God  for  the  outward  purification 
from  ceremonial  defilement),  "  and  of  the  Spirit"  (by  whom  alone 
inward  purification  from  sin,  the  regeneration  to  a  new  life,  and 
sanctification  for  communion  with  God,  can  be  effected)  "  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Judaism  recognized 
sources  of  external  defilement  and  ordained  rites  for  external 
purification.  Christianity  does  not  recognize  the  one,  nor  ordain 
tlie  other. 

This  language  of  the  Saviour  must,  therefore,  be  interpreted 
under  tlie  ruling  fact,  that  it  was  addressed  to  a  Jew  on  whom 
the  use  of  ritual  water  was  obligatory  and  elficacious  for  the  re- 
moval of  ceremonial  impurity ;  and  to  a  Pharisee  living  under 


'£f  odaroq  xai  Uvsu/iaro^.  365 

the  ministry  of  John,  whose  preaching,  that  the  higher  and  es- 
sential purification  of  the  Spirit  was  necessary  in  order  to  wel- 
come the  Messiah  and  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  he  most 
probably  rejected. 

'jC^  uSarog  xai  UvsufJiaTu^. 

Dr.  Carson  derives  an  argument  for  dipping  into  water  from 
the  preposition  ix.  He  says  (p.  164),  "John  3:  5  has  its  expla- 
nation most  intelligibly  in  emersion  out  of  the  water  in  that  or- 
dinance. To  emerge  out  of  the  water,  is  like  a  birth.  To  be 
born  of  water  most  evidentl^^  implies,  that  water  is  the  womb  out 
of  which  the  person  who  is  born  proceeds  "  (p.  476).  Such  in- 
terpretation is  on  a  par  with  that  which  buries  Noah  in  the  Ark, 
Israel  in  the  highway  opened  through  the  Sea,  and  the  Apostles 
in  the  Sound  like  wind.  It  assumes,  that  there  is  an  t/.  which 
enters  into  a  baptism,  lohich  is  not  true,  whatever  may  be  true  of 
a  dipping;  it  assumes,  that  there  was  a  dipping  of  the  body  into 
water  required  of  the  Jews,  which  is  not  true ;  it  assumes,  that 
the  preposition  here  indicates  a  physical  "  out  of,"  which  is  not 
true.  The  force  of  the  preposition  expresses  here,  agency  and 
the  source  from  which  it  proceeds,  without  indicating  method  or 
form  of  proceeding.  This  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  did  is  sub- 
stituted for  ix  by  Patrists.  Certainl}^,  if  there  could  be  any  phys- 
ical "out  of"  water,  there  could  be  none  out  of  the  Spirit.  In 
both  cases  thei'e  is  the  same  general  indication  of  agency ;  while 
each  by  its  essential  nature  qualifies  and  gives  character  to  its 
several  agency.  That  which  is  born  of  water,  within  the  sphere 
of  religion  (Jewish)  I'eceives  a  new  condition,  character,  and  re- 
lations, such  as  water  can  effect,  namely,  one  that  is  external, 
ceremonial,  and  ecclesiastical ;  while  that  which  is  born  of  the 
Spirit  receives  a  character,  condition,  and  relations  in  conformity 
with  the  nature  of  the  Spirit,  namely,  such  as  is  essentially  pure, 
spiritual,  and  divine.  Fleshly  ordinances  produce  fleshly  results. 
The  Divine  Spirit  brings  forth  the  image  of  God.  This  passage 
has  no  direct  reference  to  Christian  baptism.  It  teaches  specifi- 
cally, the  necessity  for  an  outward  and  inward  purification  under 
Judaism,  and  genericall}'-,  the  necessity  in  every  case  for  a  com- 
plete purification  "  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 


366  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

SANCTIFICATION   AND   JUSTIFICATION. 

1  Corinthians  6  :  11. 

'KTJio,  aneT.ovaacOe,  dA/ld  TjyLacdrjre,  aTCk'  kdcKcicudT/Te,  kv  rw  6v6fj.ari  tov  Kvoiov 
'Ir/aov,  Kot  kv  r^  Uvev/mti  tov  Qeov  r//xuv. 

"  But  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified,  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God." 

Various  Views. 

Those  who  refer  this  and  other  passages  to  ritual  baptism  are 
by  no  means  agreed  among  themselves  as  to  the  value  that  should 
be  attributed  to  baptism. 

Bloomfield,  in  loco :  "  I  think  there  can  be  no  question  but 
that  these  words  have  a  direct  reference  to  baptism.  This,  in- 
deed, is  plain  from  the  turn  of  expression,  which  alludes  to  the 
form  of  baptism  ;  though  from  the  other  terras  which  are  sub- 
joined, it  should  seem  that  the  effects  of  baptism  are  designated. 
(^Ev  Tui  lIvau/j.aTi  ruu  0sou)  must  mean  by  the  Holy  Spirit  proceed- 
ing from  and  imparted  to  us  by  the  Father." 

Benqel,  in  loco  :  "  You  have  been  entirely  set  free  from  forni- 
cation and  sins  of  impurit}^,  in  regard  to  yourselves  ;  from  idolatry 
and  impiety  towards  God ;  from  unrighteousness  against  your 
neighbor.  'Ev  rw  o<^d;j.aTc :  From  this  name  we  have  the  forgiveness 
of  sins.     'E'j  TO)  H-^sn/iarc :  From  this  Spirit,  we  have  the  new  life." 

Bengel  does  not  mention  ritual  baptism, 

Calvin,  in  loco :  "  Though  these  three  terms  have  the  same 
general  meaning,  there  is,  nevertheless,  great  force  in  their 
variety.  There  is  an  implied  contrast  between  washing  and  de- 
filement—  santdification  and  pollution — justification  and  guilt. 
The  term  washing  is  metaphorical,  Christ's  blood  being  likened 
to  water.  '  In  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.''  Christ  is  the  source 
of  all  blessings ;  but  Christ  himself  with  all  his  blessings  is  com- 
municated to  us  by  the  Spirit.  For  it  is  by  faith  that  we  receive 
Christ,  and  have  his  graces  applied  to  us.  The  Author  of  faith 
is  the  Spirit." 

This  washing,  according  to  Calvin  and  to  truth,  has  no  refer- 
ence to  water  washing;  but  is  due  to  spiritual  cleansing  based  on 
a  metaphorical  use  of  Christ's  blood. 

OlSHAUSEN,  in  loco  :    "  The  three   words   dTTsXaufrafrOs,  rjyidaO-QTe^ 


WASHED,   SANCTIFIED,   JUSTIFIED.  367 

idtxaitoOrjre  comprehend  in  a  climax  progressive  Cliristian  regene- 
ration. ''ArzehtrxTaffde  exhibits  the  negative  operation  of  grace, 
forgiveness  of  sins  through  baptism.  'Ev  rui  dvofj.art,  without  doubt 
refers  to  all  three  particulars.  '  And  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God,^ 
refers  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  commences  his  agenc}'  where  the 
work  of  Christ  has  made  a  place." 

Carson,  p.  478:  "Faith  in  Christ  is  that  through  which  they 
are  washed ;  and  the  Spirit  of  our  God  is  the  Agent  who  washes 
them  by  this  means.  This  washing  is  represented  in  baptism,  to 
which  this  passage  refers."  Baptism  does  not  represent  a  wash- 
ing. lid7:Tt(T;j.a  is  unsuited  for  such  office.  The  water  in  ritual 
baptism  represents  by  its  nature  (pure)  the  washed  condition  of 
the  soul  through  the  blood  of  Christ  applied  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  is  a  radical  error  to  suppose  that  the  washing  of  Christianity, 
spoken  of  by  inspired  writers,  must  be  referred  to  the  use  of 
water  in  ritual  baptism  as  its  basis.  This  use  of  the  word  "  wash- 
ing" is  grounded  primarily  in  the  cleansing  quality  of  water  in 
general;  and  the  fitness  of  such  usage  in  Scripture  finds  its  justi- 
fication in  the  real  moral  cleansing  of  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
under  the  atonement  of  Christ.  So  far  from  this  real  moral 
washing  resting  for  its  title  upon  the  ritual  water  of  baptism  (in 
which  there  is  no  washing,  in  fact,  of  au}^  kind)  the  xise  of  the 
water  in  the  rite  is  in  absolute  dependence  for  its  fitness  on  this 
real  washing  of  the  soul  by  the  blood  of  Christ  througli  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

It  is  also  a  radical  error  to  conclude,  that  "  the  form  of  ritual 
baptism"  (covering  the  body  with  water)  is  indicated  by  the  use 
of  ^ouco  in  speaking  of  this  Christian  washing. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  hiuw  is  fitly  applied  to  ordinary 
physical  washings  of  the  entire  body  ;  but  it  would  be  a  great 
mistake  to  conclude — therefore,  in  religious  washings  the  whole 
body  must  be  covered  with  water.  All  that  is  necessary  to  the 
fullest  vindication  of  the  usage  is  complete  purification,  however 
induced.  The  bod}^  of  a  Jew  sprinkled  with  heifer  ashes  was 
completely  cleansed ;  and  could  as  properly  be  said  to  be  washed 
(=  cleansed),  as  if  any  quantity  of  water  to  an}'  extent  had  been 
applied  to  it.  What  rational  being  would  say,  that  Rev.  1  :  5 
"  Unto  Him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  {Xubaavrt)  us  from  our  sins 
by  (tv)  his  blood"  meant  to  teach,  that  all  the  redeemed  were 
covered  over  in  the  blood  of  Christ?  Or,  that  there  was  the 
slightest  difference  as  to  the  completeness  of  the  washing  (==  cleans- 


368  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

ing,  purification)  as  thus  indicated  and  tliat  declared  in  1  Peter 
1:2,  "  Elect  .  .  .  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  {pw.^-'.(T!ibv)  of 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ?"  Could  error  go  beyond  the  idea, 
that  that  blood  "which  cleanses  from  all  sin"  was  more  or  less 
extensively  cleansing  as  it  is  represented  in  its  application  to  be 
a  "  washing,"  or  a  "  sprinkling"? 

However  much  a  washing  and  a  sprinkling  may  differ  from 
each  other  (in  their  original  and  ordinary  application)  in  form 
and  effect,  yet,  when  used  to  express  the  application  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  to  the  soul,  the  result  (complete  purification  from  sin)  is 
identically  the  same,  in  either  case.  The  washing  of  Christianity 
is  not  a  physical  cleansing.  It  may  be  represented  as  effected  by 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  or  as  sj'mbolized  by  the 
sprinkling  of  pure  water,  as  well  as  in  any  other  way. 

To  understand  washed  ("3'e  are  washed")  as  applied  to  the  re- 
deemed as  meaning,  that  they  were  made  clean  only  so  far  as  the 
blood  of  Christ  may  have  been  superficially  applied,  and  no 
fai'ther  (as,  "  he  washed  (i^-ouusv)  their  stripes  "),  would  manifest  a 
singular  obliviousness  both  of  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  and 
of  the  nature  of  words  b}^  which  a  resultant  effect  (accomplished 
in  any  way),  may  be  expressed,  instead  o^  the  form  of  the  act  by 
which,  such  eff"ect  is  ordinarily  produced. 

In  the  passage  before  us,  the  washing  must  be  understood  as 
indicative  of  an  exclusively  spiritual  condition  with  which  water 
has  nothing  to  do :  1.  Because  thus  onl}-  can  it  be  fitly  associated 
with  the  purely  spiritual  condition  of  "  sauctification  "  and  "justi- 
fication ; "  2.  Because  this  is*  demanded  by  the  Scriptures  which 
elsewhere  ascribe  this  washing  to  the  spiritual  efficac}^  of  the 
blood  of  Christ;  3.  Because  it  is  here  expressly  ascribed  to  "the 
name  of  Christ,  and  the  Spirit  of  our  God,"  which  are  adequate 
to  the  result ;  and  the  introduction  of  ritual  water  is  alike  un- 
necessar}'  and  out  of  place. 

So,  Irenaeus  (1151):  "'Abluti  estis '  credentes  'in  nomine 
Domini,'  et  accipientes  ejus  Spiritum.  Abluti  autem  sumus  nou- 
substantiam  corporis,  sed  pristinam  vanitatis  conversationem." 
He  makes  the  washing  spiritual  and  not  physical  or  ceremonial. 


WASHINa    OF    WATER    BY    THE    WORD.  369 

THE   WASHING    OP   WATER   BY   THE   WORD. 

Ephesians  5 :  26. 

"Iva  avT7]V  ayiaar],  Kadapiaac  rC  ?iOVTp(I)  rov  vSarog,  kv  pr/fxart, 

"  That  he  might  sanctil  r  it,  cleansing  it  with  the  washing  of  water,  by 
the  word." 

Various  Views. 

Dr.  Pusey,  p.  160:  "St.  Paul  mentions  no  other  instrument 
but  baptism  ;  for  in  that  he  says,  '  with  the  washing  of  water  by 
the  wo7'd,'  he  means  the  Divine  word  which  renders  the  element 
of  water  efficacious  to  our  regeneration,  our  blessed  Saviour's 
'word'  of  consecration." 

"  By  what  word  ?  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  says  Chrysostom ;  and  so  Theodoret, 
"That  saying,  '•having  cleansed  in  the  ivashing  of  water,  by  the 
word,^  stands  for,  '  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'" 

Bloomfield,  in  loco :  "  tw  XnurpiL  rou  udaTo<;  must  be  understood 
of  baptism,  in  which  the  new  Christian  is  washed  from  the  stains 
of  original  sin,  and  which  is  also  a  symbol  of  that  purity  to  which 
the  new  professor  binds  himself.  Such  appears  to  be  the  chief 
sense.  On  the  sense  of  iv  pTjimn  Commentators  are  not  agreed. 
Some  think  it  adverts  to  the  words  of  the  baptismal  form,  as  ac- 
companied with  prayers.  Locke,  Beza,  Rosenm.,  and  others  un- 
derstand b}'  it,  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  the  Gospel,  as  the  means  of 
their  original  conversion  and  progressive  sanctification.  This  I 
prefer." 

Calvin,  m  loco:  "  That  he  might  sanctify ;  that  he  might  sepa- 
rate it  to  himself.  This  is  accomplished  by  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  the  regeneration  of  the  Spirit. 

^'•Washing  it  with  the  washing  of  water :  Having  mentioned  the 
inward  sanctification,  he  now  adds  the  outward  symbol,  by  which 
it  is  visibl3' confirmed.  If  the  truth  were  not  connected  with  bap- 
tism, it  would  be  improper  to  say,  that  baptism  is  the  washing  of 
the  soul.  We  must  not  imagine  that  water  cleanses  the  pollutions 
of  the  soul,  which  nothing  but  the  blood  of  Christ  can  accomplish. 
We  must  beware  of  giving  any  portion  of  our  confidence  to  the 
element  or  to  man,  but  place  all  our  dependence  on  Christ.  The 
apostle  does  not  say  that  it  is  the  sign  that  washes,  but  God. 

24 


370  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

God  employs  a  sign  as  the  outward  means.  God  acts  by  the  sign 
so  that  its  whole  efficacy  depends  on  his  Spirit.  God  may  bestow 
the  grace  without  the  aid  of  the  sign.  Many  receive  the  sign 
witliout  the  grace.  In  the  word.  If  the  v)ord  is  taken  away  the 
whole  power  of  the  sacraments  is  gone.  By  the  word  is  here 
meant  the  promise,  which  explains  tlie  value  and  use  of  the  signs. 
la  the  word  is  equivalent  to  '  by  the  word.'  " 

Bengel,  in  loco:  "  That  he  might  sanctify.  Sanctification  is 
derived  from  the  blood  of  Christ;  cleansing  or  purification  from 
baptism  and  the  word.  Why  did  Christ  give  himself  for  the 
Church?  That  he  might  sanctify  it.  Why  did  he  cleanse  it? 
That  he  might  present  it  to  himself.  The  former  is  the  new  right 
acquired  by  Christ  over  the  Church ;  the  latter  shows  how  he 
adorned  his  bride,  as  befitted  such  a  bride  of  such  a  Husband, 
The  cleansing  power  is  in  the  word.,  and  it  is  put  forth  through 
the  washing.  Water  and  the  bath  are  the  vehicle ;  but  the  ivord 
is  a  nobler  instrumental  cause. 

"  By  the  washing  with  water  by  the  word.  A  remarkable  testi- 
mony for  baptism,  in  (by)  the  ivord.  Baptism  has  the  power  of 
purifying  owing  to  the  word,  John  15:3;  in  (by)  to  be  construed 
with  cleansing. 

'"'•That  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  church.  We 
should  derive  our  estimate  of  sanctification  from  the  love  of 
Christ;  what  bride  despises  the  ornaments  offered  bj'  her  hus- 
band ?  That  the  Church  ma}'  be  without  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any 
such  thing,  holy  and  without  blemish." 

Olshausen,  in  loco:  "In  the  combination  iva  duzr^v  dyidnrj  y.afla- 
piffaq  we  are  to  take  ayLd^ety  as  a  consequence  of  y.aOapi'^siv  -.  '  tliat 
he  might  sanctif}'  her,  after  he  had  previously  purified  her  by  the 
bath,'  i.  e.,  baptism.  But  the  explanation  of  iv  ('>■/] tmn  is  uncertain. 
It  can  be  joined  only  with  Xovrpov  too  urJaro-:.  It  is  in  sense  equiva- 
lent to  Iv  lheo;j.aTt,  intimating  that  baptism  is  no  mere  bath,  but  a 
bath  in  the  word,  i.  e.,  one  by  which  man  is  born  again  of  water 
and  the  Spirit. 

^^'P-7,>m  is  here,  as  in  Ileb.  1 :  .'5,  11:3,  a  designation  of  the 
Divine  power  and  efficacy,  in  general,  which,  from  its  nature, 
must  be  a  spiritual  one.  But  in  Christianity  the  Spirit  manifests 
itself  only  in  the  Word  of  Truth,  which  is  in  Christ. 

"As  Christ  purifies  and  cleanseth  the  Church,  so  likewise  a 
faithful  iiusband  wishes  to  deliver  his  wife  from  every  moral 
stain." 


WASHING    OF    WATER    BY    THE    WORD.  371 

Ellicott,  in  loco  :  "  That  he  might  sanctify  it.  Sanctification 
of  the  Church  attendant  on  the  remission  of  sins  in  baptism, 
Sanctification  and  purification  are  dependent  on  the  atoning  death 
of  Christ. 

"  Having  purified  it.  More  naturally  antecedent  to  dpaffrj.  but 
contemporaneous  act  tenable  on  grammatical  grounds.  Bij  the 
laver  of  the  water.  The  reference  to  baptism  is  clear  and  distinct, 
and  the  meaning  of  Xourpov  indisputable,  as  instrumental  object. 

"  la  the  word.  There  is  great  difficulty  in  determining  the 
exact  meaning  and  grammatical  connection  of  these  words.  The 
meaning  is  prol)ably  the  Gospel ;  the  word  of  God  preached  and 
taught  before  baptism.  The  connection  is  probably  with  the  whole 
expression.,  xa6.  kourp.  mo  ud.  According  to  this  view  ^v  pTj/xan  has 
neither  a  purel}'  instrumental,  nor,  certainly,  a  simple  modal  force, 
but  specifies  the  necessary'  accompaniment.,  that  in  which  the  bap- 
tismal purification  is  vouchsafed  and  without  which  it  is  not 
granted.  That  he  might  present.  As  in  2  Cor.  11:2,  the  presen- 
tation of  the  bride  to  the  bridegroom  ;  Christ  permits  neither  at- 
tendants nor  paranymphs  to  present  the  Bride  :  He  alone  presents, 
He  receives," 

Carson,  p.  212:  "The  bath  of  baptism  is  onl}'^  the  figure  of 
that  which  is.  done  by  the  word.  It  is  expressly  said  that  the 
washing  of  water  is  by  the  word.  Tlie  word  is  the  means  by 
whicli  the  believer  is  washed  in  the  blood  of  Christ.  The  believer 
is  washed  by  the  word,  even  although,  through  ignorance  or  want 
of  opportunity,  he  has  never  been  washed  in  water." 

Unsatisfactory. 

None  of  these  views,  so  far  as  they  make  the  water  of  ritual 
baptism  a  cause  of  spiritual  purification  or  place  it,  in  any  sense, 
in  living  relation  with  it,  are  satisfactory.  The  exposition  of 
Calvin  is  wisely  discriminating.  That  view  which  makes  ritual 
baptism  a  pure  opus  operatum^  cleansing  from  sin  and  regenerating 
the  soul,  is  satisfactory  in  so  far  as  its  sentiment  is  plainl}'^  stated 
and  its  boundaries  are  sharply  defined  ;  but  it  cannot  be  received 
as  a  satisfactor}'  exposition  of  any  passage  of  Scripture,  whose 
general  scope  and  particular  statements  it  contradicts.  That 
view  which  makes  ritual  baptism  a  cause,  but  not  the  sole  and 
direct  cause,  of  spiritual  purification,  does  not  afford  the  satisfac- 
tion of  being  either  definite  or  intelligible. 


372  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

There  is  a  want  of  accord  among  its  friends  as  to  the  co-union 
of  the  physical  and  spiritual  element,  as  well  as  to  the  spiritual 
value  of  their  joint  operation.  The  doctrine  is  defective  as  not 
covering  such  cases  as  receive  the  rite  confessedly  without  spirit- 
ual benefit,  and  such  other  cases  as  confessedly  receive  full 
spiritual  benefit  without  receiving  the  rite.  It  also  antagonizes 
that  very  teaching  of  the  Saviour  out  of  which  it  claims  to  grow, 
namely,  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  Jiesh,  and  that  which 
is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  The  principle  pervading  this 
statement  is,  "  Like  begets  like ;"  a  principle  incorporated  in 
Creation  at  the  beginning  and  maintained  until  now.  Phyaical 
agencies  beget  kindred  physical  results ;  and  Spiritual  agencies 
beget  kindred  spiritual  results.  A  miracle  only  can  educe  spirit- 
ual results  from  physical  causes.  The  Saviour's  words  establish 
instead  of  announcing  the  overthrow  of  this  law.  But  the  friends 
of  this  doctrine  (ie!c^are  it  to  he  a  miracle:  "  Baptism  is  so  much 
the  more  extolled  in  that  it  was  the  end  of  so  man}'  miracles ; 
and  the  daily  miracle  which  he  ivorketh  in  the  Baptismal  fountain 
of  our  Christian  Church  receives  the  more  glory,  in  that  the 
first  opening  of  that  '  fountain  for  sin  and  uncleanness '  was  so 
solemnized;  and  the  dail}^  gift  'of  the  new  birth  of  the  water 
and  the  Spirit'  in  our  Gentile  church  is  greater  than  that  miracu- 
lous shedding  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  ushered  it  in  and  secured 
it  to  us  "  (Dr.  Pusey,  Holy  Baptism,  p.  180 

Others  raa}^  reject  the  miracle  character  of  this  co-action  of 
water  and  the  Spirit ;  but  the}*  never  have  made  their  views  in- 
telligible, self-consistent,  accordant  with  facts,  or  harmonious  with 
the  Scriptures.     Water  regeneration  is  nothing  or  it  is  a  miracle. 

That  view  which  would  make  a  direct  reference  to  the  water  of 
the  rite  as  a  "  sign  "  of  the  higher  and  sole  purification  wrought 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  in  itself  possible ;  but  whether  there  would 
be  any  such  reference  as  that,  in  this  passage,  to  a  symbol  which 
does  not  effect  any  purification  (not  physical  any  inox'e  than  spirit- 
ual) is  very  questionable. 

Suggestion. 

All  interpreters  agree  that  the  purification  Iiinges  on  iv  prj/mrt. 
Tliere  is  a  very  general  agreement  in  placing  this  phrase  in  close 
rehil  ion  with  xaOufjiffa^  hiozpw  zoo  udaroi;.  There  is,  also,  an  ex- 
preysion  of  decided  einbarrassmeut  in  determining  the  precise 
character  of  this  relation.     It  may  be  that  the  embarrassment  in 


WASHING    OF    WATER    BY    THE    WORD.  373 

acljustiug  the  relation  between  these  phrases  arises  from  tlie  char- 
acter which  is  attributed  to  the  former,  as  representing  the  water 
of  ritual  baptism  and  purification  by  it. 

The  phrase  "  washing  of  water,"  by  its  own  force,  denotes  a 
washing  which  is  effected  by  water.  There  is  no  agency  in  nature 
which  can  effect  a  more  perfect  washing  of  an  unclean  object. 
The  "  washing  of  water  "  is  capable  of  use  to  express  the  perfect- 
ness  of  the  cleansing  etfected  by  any  other  agency  differing  in 
nature  from  water,  yet  purifying  in  its  influence.  That  is  to  say, 
the  loashing  which  is  effected  by  water  becomes  the  common  and 
supreme  standard  among  men  for  purity.  Thus  Job  (9 :  30)  says : 
Snow-water  washing  will  make  "  never  so  clean,"  and  stand  any 
test  of  purity,  except  that  of  the  pjureness  of  God.  Here  moral 
purity,  the  result  of  holy  living,  is  likened  to  that  purity  of  hands 
which  is  the  result  of  snow-water  washing. 

The  phrase  "  having  cleansed  or  cleansing  by  the  washing  of 
WATER  "  may  express  either  the  cleansing  in  fact  by  water,  or  it 
may  refer  to  water-cleansing  simply  as  the  basis  of  a  comparison 
with  some  other  cleansing  effected  by  an  agency  diverse  from 
water,  in  order  to  express  the  completeness  of  its  power  to  cleanse. 
Is  not  this  its  use  in  the  passage  before  us  ?  And  is  not  the 
relation  of  iv  f^yj/mzi  to  this  phrase  (as  declaring  the  diverse  cleans- 
ing agenc}^)  made  clear?  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  will  sanctify 
his  church  (his  Bride),  cleansing  it  (as)  with  the  washing  of  water 
by  the  ivord  through  which  the  Holy  Spirit  cleanses  the  souls  of 
his  redeemed.  By  such  reference  to  the  perfect  cleansing  by 
water  physically,  the  perfect  cleansing  "  by  the  word  "  spiritually 
is  exhibited  with  both  strength  and  beauty.  And  the  basis  of 
such  reference  (the  physically  cleansing  power  of  water)  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  that  of  the  symbol  use  of  water  in  baptism  ; 
but  inasmuch  as  the  water  in  baptism  does  not  cleanse  in  fact,  it 
cannot  be  the  basis  of  the  reference  here.  I  know  of  no  reason 
from  the  phraseology  which  precludes  such  interpretation.  It  is 
in  the  fullest  harmony  with  tlie  teaching  of  Scripture  in  general, 
and  with  the  tenor  of  this  passage  in  particular.  It  relieves  of  a 
world  of  embarrassment  which  ever  has  and  must  gather  around 
any  interpretation  which  takes  ritual  baptism  as  its  exponent. 

If  any  should  wish  for  more  special  regard  to  be  had  to  the 
article  before  "water,"  it  maybe  regarded  as  indicating  the  water 
used  in  Bridal  washing,  to  which,  by  general  admission,  reference 
is  made.     "  The  water  "  furnished  for  such  purpose  would  (like 


374  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

the  "  snow-water "  of  Job)  be  so  pure  as  to  render  the  object 
washed  "  never  so  clean." 

The  sentiment  of  the  passage  is — The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in 
preparing  the  Church  for  presentation  to  Himself,  "  as  a  Bride 
adorned  for  her  Husband,"  will  cleanse  it  from  all  moral  impurity 
by  his  word  and  Spirit,  as  perfectly  as  any  object  can  be  cleansed 
from  physical  impurity  by  the  washing  of  water,  so  that  the 
Church  can  say  with  David  (Ps.  51  :  7),  "  Purge  me  with  hyssop, 
and  I  shall  be  clean ;  wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow." 
Thus  washed  it  will  be  "  a  glorious  church,  not  having  spot,  or 
wrinkle,  or  au}^  sucli  thing ;  but  holy  and  without  blemish." 

A  quite  parallel  passage  may  be  found  in  Ezek.  16:8,  .  .  .  "I 
sware  unto  thee  and  entered  into  covenant  with  thee,  saith  the 
Lord  God,  and  thou  becaniest  mine.  Then  washed  I  thee  with 
water  (^llou<7d(7£  h  udarc)^  and  cleansed  (aTrinXuva)  thee  from  thy 
blood,  and  anointed  thee  with  oil  (h  iXaiw)^  and  I  clothed  thee 
with  broidered  work ;  I  decked  thee  also  with  ornaments ;  .  .  . 
thy  beauty  was  perfect  through  my  comeliness^  which  I  had  put 
upon  thee,  saith  the  Lord  God."  Here  "  washing  with  water  "  is 
used  not  to  express  a  thing  done  by  God ;  but  a  thing  practiced 
by  men  is  made  the  basis  to  illustrate  a  kindred  result  effected  by 
God,  whereb}^  he  puts  "  his  own  comeliness,"  in  spotless  purit\f, 
upon  his  Church.  The  "  washing,"  and  the  "  broidered  work," 
and  the  "  ornaments,"  were  alike  the  imparted  divine  "  comeli- 
ness." 

This  washing  (Xoow)  is  no  more  represented  as  being  in  the 
water,  than  is  the  anointing  as  being  in  the  oil.  There  is  no 
cleansing  by  water-washing  in  fact,  any  more  than  there  is  an 
anointing  with  oil ;  but  these  things  constitute  a?i  allusive  basis 
to  expound  kindred  things  accomplished  by  God  through  other 
agencies. 

The  Church  is  sanctified  by  the  Wm-d,  and  thereby  purified  as 
perfectly  as  the  washing  by  water  (the  most  perfect  of  all  purify- 
ing physical  agencies)  can  purify  the  oVjject  washed  by  it.  This 
appears  to  be  a  just  paraphrase  of  the  passage.  There  is  no  im- 
mediate reference  to  ritual  baptism.  The  point  of  junction  be- 
tween this  passage  and  ritual  baptism  is  a  common  basis  in  the 
nature  of  water  (pureness)  and  in  the  effect  of  water-washing 
(puj'ity).  Out  of  these  characteristics  the  use  of  water  in  ritual 
baptism  and  the  language  of  this  passage  are  equally  and  inde- 
pendently developed. 


VARIOUS    VIEWS.  375 


THE   WASHING   OF   REGENERATION. 

,  Titus  3  :  5. 

Kara  rbv  avrov  k/ieov  iauaev  y/id^^  Sea  Aovrpov  TraTi.fyyeveaiaq  koX  avanaiviiaeuq 
TLvevfiaTog  'Ayiov. 

"  God  our  Saviour  .  .  .  according  to  his  mercy  saved  us,  by  the  washing 
of  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us 
abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour." 

Various  Views. 

Dr.  Pusey,  p.  48  :  "  The  washing  of  regeneration  ayid  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  i.  e.,  a  Baptizing  accompanied  by,  or  couvey- 
ixig  a  reproduction,  a  second  birth,  a  restoration  of  our  decayed 
nature,  by  the  new  and  fresh  life,  imparted  by  the  Hol}^  Ghost. 
The  Apostle  has  been  directed  both  to  limit  the  imparting  of  the 
inward  grace,  by  the  mention  of  the  outward  washing,  and  to 
raise  our  conceptions  of  the  greatness  of  this  second  birth,  by 
the  addition  of  the  spiritual  grace.  The  gift,  moreover,  is  the 
gift  of  God  in  and  by  Baptism;  everything  but  God's  mere}' is 
excluded — 'not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done ' — 
they  only  who  believe  will  come  to  the  washing  of  regeneration  ; 
yet  not  belief  alone,  but  '  God,  according  to  his  mercy,  saves 
them  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  ;'  by  faith  are  we  saved,  not 
b}''  works  ;  and  by  Baptism  we  are  saved,  not  b\^  faith  only ;  for 
so  God  hath  said ;  not  the  necessity  of  preparation,  but  its  effl- 
cienc}'  in  itself  is  excluded ;  baptism  comes  neither  as  '  grace  of 
congruity,'  nor  as  an  outward  seal  of  benefits  before  conveyed; 
we  are  saved  neither  by  faith  onl^^,  nor  by  Baptism  only ;  but 
faith  bringing  us  to  Baptism,  and  '  by  Baptism  God  saves  us.' 
They  are  the  words  of  God  himself.  As  our  Lord  said  negatively, 
without  the  birth  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  or  Baptism,  man  '  could 
not  see  the  kingdom  of  God,'  so  St.  Paul,  that  'by  it  we  are 
saved  ; '  saved  out  of  the  world,  and  brought  into  the  ark,  if  we 
but  abide  there  and  become  not  reprobates." 

Dr.  Pusey  quotes  in  confirmation  the  ancient  Liturgies,  among 
others  the  following:  "  Sanctif}^  this  water  and  this  oil,  that  thej^ 
may  be  a  bath  of  regeneration  (Amen)  to  eternal  life  (Amen) ; 
for  a  clothing  of  immortality  (Amen),  for  the  adoption  of  sons 
(Amen),  for  the  renovation  of  the  Hol}^  Spirit  (Amen),  etc. 
Grant  to  it  power  to  become  life-giving  water  (Amen),  sanctify- 


376  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

ing  water  (Amen),  water  cleansing  sin  (Amen),  water  of  the  bath 
of  regeneration  (Amen),  water  of  the  adoption  of  sons  (Amen), 
ete."  (p.  51). 

Bloompield,  171  loco:  Through  the  washing  of  regeneration. 
"  All  the  most  enlightened  Interpreters  have  been  long  agreed 
that  the  opinion  invariably  supported  b}^  early  Fathers  is  the  true 
one,  namel}^  that  baptismal  regeneration  is  here  meant.  ...  I 
will  only  add  that  the  disputes  upon  baptismal  and  moral  regen- 
eration have  too  often  degenerated  into  logomachies ;  whereas,  if 
the  disputants  would  take  care  to  define  tlie  terms  they  emplo}'^, 
and  have  the  patience  to  understand  each  other,  the}'  would  be 
found  to  differ  far  less  than  they  seem  to  do.  [laXtyyeveaiac;  some- 
times, in  ancient  writers,  means  moral  reformation.'''' 

Bengel,  in  loco:  "  Two  things  are  mentioned  :  the  washing  of 
regeneration^  which  is  a  periphrasis  for  baptism  into  Christ ;  and 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  regeneration  and  renewing 
takes  away  all  the  death  and  the  old  state,  under  which  we  so 
wretchedly  lay,  and  which  is  described,  v.  3  ;  2  Cor.  5  :  17." 

Calvin,  in  loco :  He  hath  saved  us.  "  He  speaks  of  faith,  and 
shows  that  we  have  already  obtained  salvation,  according  to  that 
saying — '  He  that  beliveth  in  the  Son  of  God  hath  passed  from 
death  unto  life.' 

'•''By  the  washing  of  regeneration.  This  alludes,  at  least,  to 
baptism,  and  even  I  will  not  object  to  have  this  passage  ex- 
pounded as  relating  to  baptism  ;  not  that  salvation  is  contained 
in  the  outward  symbol  of  water,  but  because  baptism  seals  to  us 
the  salvation  obtained  by  Christ.  Since  a  part  of  revelation 
consists  in  ])aptism,  that  is,  so  far  as  it  is  intended  to  confirm  our 
faith,  Paul  properly  makes  mention  of  it.  The  strain  of  the 
passage  runs  thus :  God  hath  saved  us  by  his  mercy,  the  symbol 
and  pledge  of  which  he  gave  in  baptism,  by  admitting  us  into  his 
church,  and  ingrafting  us  into  the  body  of  his  Son. 

"  And  of  the  renewing  of  the  Holij  Spirit.  Though  he  men- 
tioned the  sign,  that  he  might  exhibit  to  our  view  the  grace  of 
God,  yet,  that  we  may  not  fix  our  whole  attention  on  the  sign,  he 
immediately  sends  us  to  the  Spirit,  that  we  may  know  that  we 
are  washed  by  his  power,  and  not  by  water.  Paul,  while  he  speaks 
directly  of  the  Spirit,  at  the  same  time  alludes  to  baptism.  It  is 
therefore  the  Spirit  of  God  who  regenerates  us,  and  makes  us  new 
creatures;  but  because  his  grace  is  invisible  and  hidden  a  visible 
symbol  of  it  is  beheld  in  baptism. 


AouTpov.  377 

"  Through  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  be  alone  through  whom  we  are 
made  partakers  of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  of  regeneration  is  be- 
stowed on  none  but  those  who  are  the  members  of  Christ." 

Ellicott,  in  loco :  "  By  means  of  the  laver  of  regeneration. 
This  is  the  causa  medians  of  the  saving  grace  of  Christ;  it  is  a 
means  whereby  we  receive  the  same,  and  a  pledge  to  assure  us 
thereof.  Less  than  this  cannot  be  said  b}^  any  candid  Interpreter. 
The  genitive  nah/ys'^sTuxq  apparently  mai'ks  the  attribute  or  in- 
separable accompaniments  of  the  hiurpdv,  the  possessive  genitive. 

"  And  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  i.  e.,  by  the  Hol}^  Spirit,  the 
second  genitive  being  that  of  the  agent.  The  construction  of  the 
first  genitive  a^ay.aivwfTsioq  is  somewhat  doubtful.  It  may  be  re- 
garded as  dependent  on  8uj.  or  on  kuurpou.  The  latter  seems  most 
simple  and  satisfactor3^  The  exact  genitival  relation  Ttahyye'^sffiaq 
and  dyay.atvdi(T£wi;  cannot  be  very  certainly  or  very  confidentl}-  de- 
fined. The  genitive  is  most  probably  an  obscured  genitive  of  the 
content.,  representing  that  which  the  luurpdv  involves,  comprises, 
brings  with  it,  and  of  which  it  is  the  ordinary  and  appointed  ex- 
ternal vehicle :  compare  Mark  1  :  4,  i^a.nriffjxa  jxeravoia':.,  which, 
grammatically  considered,  is  somewhat  similar." 

"  Which  (Holy  Spirit)  he  poured  out.  The  special  reference  is 
not  to  the  Pentecostal  effusion,  nor  to  the  communication  to  the 
church  at  large,  but,  as  the  tense  and  context  seem  rather  to 
imply,  to  individuals  in  baptism.  The  next  clause  points  out 
through  whose  mediation  this  eff'usion  is  bestowed." 

Dr.  Carson,  p.  211 :  "  Here  baptism  is  called  the  bath  or  laver 
of  regeneration.  In  the  figui-e  it  is  the  place  of  birth.  The  bap- 
tized person  is  represented  as  born  in  the  ordinance,  and  is  sup- 
posed to  be  alread}^  born,  or  renewed  by  the  Spirit.  .  .  .  None 
are  represented  in  Scripture  as  born  again,  except  through  the 
belief  of  the  truth.  'Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed, 
but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth 
forever'  (1  Peter  1  :  23)." 

Aourpo'^. 

Bishop  Ellicott  thinks  that  the  meaning  of  Xourpov  as  the  in- 
strumental object,  the  containing  vessel,  is  not  disproved  by  any 
cases  of  usage  yet  adduced. 

This  is  certain,  that  hiur^jp  and  not  Xourpov  is  the  favorite  word 
used  by  the  Septuagint  and  early  Christian  writers,  to  express 
the  containing  vessel. 


378  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Josepliiis  (de  Bel.  VII,  6,  3)  uses  hiurpuv  not  to  express  "the 
containing  vessel,"  but  the  water  itself,  to  be  used  for  bathing, — 
"  hot  and  cold  water  mixed  make  a  very  pleasant  (Xnurpo'^)  bath." 

President  Beecher,  p.  208,  adduces  evidence  of  the  like  char- 
acter from  Pori)hyry  (in  libel,  de  antro  Nympharum)  in  which 
water  brought  from  springs  in  a  vessel  carried  by  a  boy,  was 
used  for  purification,  and  was  called  Xou-pov^  or  Xnurpa  \>oii.<p'.y.d. 
Zonaras  defines  Xourpd  thus:  "  ra  elq  Xixnv  dyovra  rif~  a/jj-Oapaiaz 
things  which  conduce  to  the  removal  of  impurit3\"  This  usage 
seems  to  establish  the  same  nsage  as  that  of  Josephus,  namely, 
this  word  was  used  to  express  the  water  used  for  purification  (by 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  in  ceremonial  cleansings,  as  well  as  by 
bathing),  and  not  to  denote  "the  containing  vessel." 

President  Beecher  adduces,  also,  the  following  from  Ba^il, 
Letter  386,  "  '  He  washed  away  all  the  stains  of  his  soul  at  the 
close  of  his  life  by  the  ivai^hing  of  rerjeneration  XouTpw  ~aXtyYv>t(jia<;.'' 
The  case  is  that  of  the  prtetor  Ariantheus,  converted  b3'  his  wife, 
and  also  baptized  by  her  on  his  djiug  hed."  This  usage  seems 
to  exclude  not  only  "  the  containing  vessel,"  but,  as  well,  the 
water  itself  (as  a  simple  bath),  and  to  reach  over  to  the  effect  pro- 
duced by  the  use;  a  loashitTg  (purification)  of  regeneration.  The 
containing  vessel  has  disappeared  ;  the  form  of  a  bath  has  equally 
disap[>eared  ;  and  the  effect  in  the  soul,  as  Basil  believed  (induced 
by  sprinkling  or  pouring),  only  remains.  A  ceremonial  sprinkling 
or  pouring  will  effect  a  complete  ceremonial  washing  =  purifica- 
tion. Basil  interpreted  this  text  as  a  spiritual  and  not  as  a  mere 
ritual  water  washing.  In  accordance  with  this  usage  is  that  in 
Sirach  34 :  30,  "  Baptized  (=  purified)  from  a  dead  body  and 
touching  it  again,  what  is  he  profited  by  (XourpiL)  his  cleansing." 
Also,  Clem.  Alex.,  "Be  pure  not  by  washing  (Xourpw)  but  by 
thinking  (f^w)  (I,  1352)."  This  evidence  appears  to  be  conclu- 
sive against  the  limitation  of  hmrpth  to  "  the  containing  vessel." 
Cremer  (Xonm^  Xnuzpdv)  says,  the  verb  and  noun  arc  used  for  re- 
ligious washings,  purifications  ;  quoting  Soph.  Ant.,  1186  XMUfravrsi; 
'ayvd'^  Xdurpov  washing  a  pure  washing. 

The  idea  of  washing  (expressed  by  Xo'xv  and  other  verbs)  in  a 
purely  spiritual  sense,  in  religious  applications,  is  common  in  the 
Scriptures:  Ps.  26:6:  "I  will  wash  (vi4>()iiai)  my  hands  in  in- 
nocencey  This  is  a  different  washing  from  that  of  Pilate  when 
"he  washed  his  hands  in  ivater.''^  Ps.  51  :  2:  "Wash  (rdi>vo\')  me 
thoroughly  from  mine  iniquity."    Iniquities  are  not  washed  away 


AnurpSv.  879 

by  water.  Is.  1  :  16  :  "  Wash  3'ou  {kohaaaOe)  ;  make  you  clean  ;  put 
away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  my  eyes  ;  cease  to  do 
evil;  learn  to  do  well;  .  .  .  though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they 
shall  be  as  white  as  snow."  Washing  in  "  snow-water  "  will  not 
accomplish  such  cleansing.  Is.  4  :  4  :  "  When  the  Lord  shall  have 
washed  away  {ly.nluvel)  the  filth  of  the  daughters  of  Zion  .  .  .  by 
the  spirit  of  judgment,  and  by  the  spirit  of  burning."  "Judg- 
ment "  and  '"  burning  "  do  not  wash  physically. 

Acts  22  :  16  :  "  Wash  away  (^anoXovaat)  thy  sins  calling  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  Prayer  will  wash  away  sin ;  umfer  will  not. 
1  Cor.  6:11:  "  But  ye  are  washed  {a-ehwaaffOs)^  but  ye  are  sancti- 
fied, but  ye  are  justified,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by 
the  Spirit  of  our  God."  The  onl}^  thing  we  need  to  be  washed 
from,  under  Christianity,  is  sin  ;  and  the  only  means  by  which 
this  can  be  done,  is  the  blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus ;  and  the  only 
Agent  who  can  so  wash,  is  "  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  Rev.  1:5: 
"  Unto  him  that  loved  us  and  washed  us  {Xouffovri)  from  our  sins 
by  his  blood."  This  is  not  water  washing.  Rev.  1 :  14:  "And 
have  washed  (cTrAuvav)  their  robes  and  made  them  white  by  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb ;"  "  Fine  linen  is  the  righteousness  of 
Saints"  (Rev.  19:  8);  and  the  righteousness  of  Saints  is  Jesus, 
"  the  Lord  our  righteousness ;"  his  people  "  put  Him  on  "  and 
are  arrayed  in  robes  made  white  by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb. 
This  is  not  water  washing. 

With  such  abounding  use  of  "washing,"  wholly  removed  from 
the  sphere  of  physical  agencies  and  physical  results,  there  is 
surely  nothing  to  constrain  us  (if  there  be  anything  to  warrant 
us)  in  finding  physical  elements  in  the  washing  spoken  of  in  the 
passage  under  consideration.     There  are  none. 

The  Genitive. 

Bishop  Ellicott  thinks  that  there  are  special  diflSculties  in  de- 
termining the  character  of  the  genitives  -KaXiYYeverriac^  avay.at'^wiyswq^ 
but  prefers  their  being  connected  together  and  placed  in  common 
relation  with  hturpoh^  and  expository  of  it.  If  this  be  done 
would  it  not  be  proper  to  make  the  entire  phrase,  the  washing 
and  its  characteristics,  directly  dependent  upon,  Ihsufj.aTo^  "Ayiou  ? 
The  sentiment  being — Salvation  through  the  washing  effected  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  the  distinguishing  features  of  which  are — a  re- 
generate nature  and  a  renewed  mind  =  the  cleansed  condition 


380  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  the  soul.  If  this  phrase  be  broken,  and  considered  in  two  dis- 
tinct yet  intimately  related  parts,  must  not  -ahyyevzaia^  and 
TIvso/JMroq  "Ayioo  be  made  the  governing  words,  and  the  sentiment 
be, — He  saved  us  by  a  regenerative  washing  and  a  Divine  reno- 
vation ?  We  are  saved  by  a  washing  such  as  regeneration  effects, 
and  a  renovation  such  as  the  Holy  Ghost  effects.  The  regenera- 
tion being  no  less  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  than  the  renova- 
tion ;  just  as  we  are  "  washed  "  from  sm,  and  "  sanctified  "  and 
"justified,"  all  "by  the  Spirit  of  our  God  ;"  and  just  as  we  are 
"saved  by  the  Spirit  through  antitype  baptism"  (which  is  his 
work)  and  not  through  water,  by  which  "the  filth  of  the  flesh  " 
only,  can  be  put  away. 

This  very  eminent  Commentator  also  thinks,  that  ftd-!zri<r/xa  /lera- 
v"£'«Ti  grammatically  considered,  is  someivJiat  similar  to  hiurpod 
naXtyyv^eaiaq.  Is  not  the  parallelism  complete  ?  Does  not  the 
first  phrase  express  a  baptism  which  is  effected  by  repentance  (a 
repentance  baptism)  whose  nature  is  more  explicitly  stated  as  a 
jSaTiTiff/ia  iisravoia'z  el-;  a^sfftv  d/j.apTiwv  =  a  thorough  washing  from 
sin  by  repentance  ;  while  the  second  phrase  expresses  a  washing 
effected  by  regeneration  {=  a  regenerative  washing),  which  nec- 
essarily implies  the  cleansing  from  sin.  And  is  not  ^aTzxiaiimv 
Stdayji'z  equally  parallel  ?  Baptisms  effected  b}^  doctrine  (=  wash- 
ings, cleansings,  purifyihgs  b}^  repentance  and  faith)  as  wrought 
by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Is  not  such  interpretation  confirmed  by  the  like  relation  in  the 
phrase  with  which  this  is  so  intimatel^^  connected — dvaxaivtlxreioq 
Ib^vtmrnq  'Ayiou^  the  renewing  which  is  effected  by  the  Holy 
Ghost?  Any  reference  even  to  ritual  baptism  in  this  passage  is 
inadmissible.  The  work  is  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  him  it 
is  expressly  and  exclusively  ascribed.  To  bring  in  rite  or  water 
on  the  ground  of  such  a  phrase  as  Xourpou  naXiyysveiriaq  is  perfectly 
gratuitous. 


SPRINKLED    FROM    AN    EVIL    CONSCIENCE.  381 

HEART    SPRINKLED — BODY   WASHED. 

Hebrews  10:  22. 

'EppavTia/ievoi  raQ  KapStag  and  cvveidrjaeuQ  wovT/pag  Kal  ^.eXov/uevoc  to  au/na 
vdari  Ka6ap<f). 

"  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart  in  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure 
water." 

Interpretation. 

"  This  refers  to  ritual  baptism.  To  me  it  is  evident  that  the 
whole  body  was  covered  with  water.  The  heart  is  said  to  be 
sprinkled  in  allusion  to  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices;  and  the  bod}', 
in  allusion  to  bathings  under  the  law,  is  said  to  be  washed  in  pure 
water,  referring  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Now  the  pouring 
of  a  little  water  on  the  face  is  not  a  washing  of  the  body.  I  admit 
that  sprinkling  a  little  water  on  any  part  of  the  body  might  be  an 
emblem  of  purification  ;  but  this  would  not  be  called  a  washing 
of  the  body  "  (Carson,  p.  164).  "  '  Sprinkled^  There  is  an  allu- 
sion to  the  sacrificial  rite  by  which  the  mind  as  well  as  the  body 
of  the  worshipper  was  required  to  be  pure.  Washed.  This  desig- 
nates the  external  purity  which  is  wont  to  be  conjoined  with 
internal  holiness.  There  is  allusion  to  the  daily  washing  of  the 
priests.  Ernesti  says  this  washing  cannot  be  taken  proprie, 
unless  understood  of  baptism,  which  cannot  here  be  meant  ^' 
(Bloomfield,  in  loco).  "  '  Sprinkled,  washed.''  There  is  reference 
to  sacrificial  rites  by  which  the  Law  demanded  purit}^  in  mind 
and  bodi/,  internal  and  extei-nal  sanctity.  Some  tliink  there  is 
reference  to  baptism  "  (Rosenm.,  in  loco).  "  '  Sprinkled.'  A  figure 
explained  by  sacrificial  blood-sprinkling.  Washed,  as  'sprinkled,' 
is  taken  figurativeh',  so  should  '  washed,'  and  not  be  understood 
as  the  physical  washing  of  the  body  with  water  by  baptism.  The 
meaning  is :  And  if  we  are  now  thus  washed  from  our  sins  " 
(Ebrard, 2Ji  loco).  "  '-Hearts  sprinkled.'  Both  the  hearts  and  the 
body  are  cleansed.  Body  washed.  The  allusion  is  to  the  Levitical 
washings.  Pure  water.  'I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  j^ou'  " 
(Bengel,  in  loco).  " '  Sprinkled.'  The  expression  is  bon-owed 
from  the  rites  of  the  law.  Which  was  external.  But  when  the 
writer  says,  '  Sprinkled  as  to  our  hearts,'  he  designates  spirittial, 
internal  purification,  and  shows  that  he  is  not  speaking  of  external 


382  cnRiSTic  baptism. 

rites.  Bodies  washed  with  pure  water.  Another  expression  bor- 
rowed from  Levitical  washings  for  external  purification.  It  seems 
to  nie,  that  there  is  here  a  plain  allusion  to  the  use  of  water  in 
Christian  baptism"  (Stuart,  in  loco).  "The  Jews  cleansed 
themselves  by  various  carnal  washings.  In  Christ  all  these  things 
are  far  superior.  Away  then  with  all  the  external  washings  of 
the  flesh.  The  Apostle  sets  a  true  heart,  a  sure  faith,  and  a 
cleansing  from  vice,  in  opposition  to  these  external  rites.  Our 
bodies  washed  with  pure  water.  This  is  generally  understood  of 
baptism ;  but  the  Apostle  more  probal)ly  alludes  to  the  ceremonies 
of  the  Law  ;  and  so  by  water  designates  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  in 
Ezekiel  30:25,'!  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you.'  The  mean- 
ing is,  that  we  are  sanctified  in  body  and  soul  by  faith,  a  pure 
conscience,  and  that  cleanness  of  soul  and  bod^^  which  flows  from, 
and  is  eff"ected  by,  the  Spirit  of  God.  So  Paul,  2  Cor.  t :  I,  '  Let 
us  cleanse  ourselves  from  all  filthiness  of  the  flesh  and  spirit, 
perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God'"  (Calvin,  in  loco).  "It 
is  evident  that  baptism  is  not  here  referred  to,  because  the  Apostle 
is  instructing  the  Hebrews,  who  had  been  baptized,  how  they  were 
daily  to  draw  nigh  to  God.  ...  As  sprinkling  in  the  case  of 
Christians  is  continually  needed,  so  is  washing,  as  the  daily  wash- 
ing of  the  priests  before  they  engaged  in  their  duties.  The  sprink- 
ling betokens  forgiveness ;  and  washing,  sanctification  or  cleans- 
ing "  (Rev.  John  Owen,  transl.  and  annot.  of  Calvin).  "  What 
is  here  meant  by  'our  bodies  being  washed '?  Corporeal  ablu- 
tions held  an  important  place  under  the  Old  economy ;  and  con- 
tinually, as  the  priests  entered  the  sanctuary,  they  had  to  wash 
their  hands  and  their  feet.  But  what  corresponds  to  this  in 
Christian  times?  We  have  no  external  sanctuary  and  no  corpo- 
real ablution  to  perform  wiien  drawing  near  to  worship  God.  The 
Apostle  must  mean  not  formally  the  same  thing  as  of  old,  but 
something  corresponding  to  it  in  nature,  which  is  simply  a  free- 
dom from  all  manifest  stains  and  blemishes  in  the  conduct. 
Acce[)led  worship[)ers  of  old,  and  now,  must  put  away  overt  acts 
of  iniquity.  The  symbol  washing  has  (lr()i)ped  ;  the  real  obliga- 
tion remains.  It  is  of  this  reality  that  the  language  of  the  Apostle 
should  be  understood.  With  a  purged  conscience  we  must  have 
an  untarnished  life"  (Fairhaikn,  licrm.  Man.  p.  130). 

Result. 
1.  This  passage  is  not  grounded  in  Christian  ritual  baptism. 


SPRINKLED    FROM    AN    EVIL    CONSCIENCE.  383 

The  "  sprinkling  of  the  heart "  cannot  be  based  in  a  Jewii^h  rite, 
and  the  "  washing  of  the  body  "  be  based  in  a  Christian  rite. 
While  the  use  of  water  under  Judaism  and  Christianity  (and 
Heathenism  as  well)  have  an  ultimate  common  ground  in  the 
ph3'sically  purifying  power  of  water,  the  immediate  specific  aspect 
of  purifying  in  which  water  is  used  under  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New  Testament  is  not  the  same.  Jewish  rites  had  efficient 
power  to  cleanse  ceremonial  defilement;  Christian  ritual  baptism 
has  nothing  to  do  with  such  defilements.  The  defilements  under 
Christianit}'  are  real,  and  its  purification  is  I'eal.  Ritual  baptism 
is  not  a  purification  at  all.  It  is  onl3'  the  symbol  of  a  i)urification. 
The  heart  is  cleansed  "  by  the  blood  of  sprinkling "  (Jewishlj'' 
speaking) ;  and  by  faith  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  Chris- 
tianly  speaking.  The  body  is  washed  with  pure  water  (Jewishly 
speaking)  ;  and  it  is  washed  b}^  godly  living,  through  the  grace 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  day  by  day,  Christianly  speaking — "Wash 
you,  make  you  clean,  cease  to  do  evil^ 

2.  The  washing  of  the  bod}^  with  water,  as  a  religious  rite, 
neither  involves  the  covering  of  the  body  in  water,  nor  the  appli- 
cation of  the  water  to  the  entire  body,  nor  yet  to  a  large  part  of 
the  body.  Dr.  Carson  (p.  493)  admits  that  in  a  washing  (kouiu) 
the  water  may  be  applied  "  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  or  in  any 
wa}'^,  but  the  object  must  be  covered." 

Tertullian  speaks  of  the  washing  (lavacro)  of  Jove  "by  showers 
of  rain."  And  we  speak  of  flowers,  etc.,  being  ''''washed  by  the 
rain"  without  any  "covering"  of  the  objects  so  washed.  Carson 
(p.  271)  says:  "A  purification  b^'  sprinkling,  or  pouring  a  few 
drops  of  water,  would  not  be  a  loutron.''^  This  is  a  clear  error, 
except  as  Dr.  Carson  should  use  this  word  in  one  sense  (physi- 
cal washing)  while  opposing  it  as  used  in  another  sense,  namel}'', 
entire  washing  =  cleansing,  purification  religiously,  of  the  body, 
or  the  soul,  or  both,  as  the  case  may  be.  "  Washing  "  is  used  to 
express  (I.)  A  physical  cleansing,  where  the  cleansing  is  only 
coextensive  with  the  application  of  the  cleansing  agency;  (2.)  A 
ceremonial  cleansing,  where  the  power  of  the  agency,  and  the 
extent  of  its  operation,  is  limited  or  extended  not  by  the  reality 
of  things,  but  by  ordinance;  (3.)  A  spiritual  cleansing,  effected 
by  spiritual  agency,  without  any  physical  intervention.  When 
Dr.  Carson  says,  "A  few  drops  of  water  sprinkled  on  the  human 
body  will  not  physically  wash  the  entire  body,"  he  states  a  self- 
evident  truth  ;  but  when  he  says  a  few  drops  of  water  or  blood 


384  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

sprinkled  on  the  human  body  will  not  ceremonially  wash  the 
entire  body,  or  will  not  sjanbolize  the  ivashing  of  the  entire  body 
and  soul  spiritually^  he  states  what  is  just  as  evidently  untrue. 

Chrj'sostom  speaks  of  martyrs  (Xouo>Tui)  washed  by  their  own 
blood.  And  Origen  speaks  of  being  washed  (hti)  by  our  own 
blood.  Calvin  (Harm.  Pent.,  p.  186)  truly  says:  "The  washing 
of  the  hands  and  feet  denoted  that  all  partn  of  the  body  were 
infected  with  uncleanness,  and  it  is  ver}'^  suitable  to  say,  by 
synecdoche,  that  all  impurit^^  is  purged  away  by  the  washing  of 
the  hands  and  feet.''''  He  also  has  the  fullest  vindication  for  sa)'- 
ing  (p.  210)  "Moses,  before  he  consecrates  the  priests,  washes 
them  hy  the  sprinkling  of  water." 

3.  As  this  /lear^sprinkling  and  &ocZ(/-washing  expresses  an  in- 
ternal and  external  purification,  as  comprising  a  complete  puri- 
fication (based  on  Jewish  phraseology  and  made  applicable  to 
Christian  truth),  it  throws  light  on  other  Scripture  less  clear.  It 
confirms  the  interpretation  given  of  the  language  addressed  to 
the  Jew,  Nicodemus, — "  born  of  ivater  and  of  the  Sjnrit^^^  as 
expressing  the  necessity  for  external  and  internal  =  complete 
purification.  It  also  illustrates  and  vindicates  that  broader 
Scriptural  use  of  "  washing  "  (separated  from  the  ifiere  physical 
element)  to  which  we  have  had  occasion  to  refer,  denoting  spirit- 
ual cleansing. 

These  passages— John  3  :  5  ;  1  Cor.  6:11;  Eph.  5 :  26  ;  Titus 
3:5;  Heb.  10:22 — are  the  principal  passages  which  are  sup- 
posed to  allude  to  ritual  baptism  and  to  teach  :  1.  That  water,  a 
physical  element,  is  divinely  appointed  and  is  essential  to  wash 
away  sin  and  to  regenerate  the  soul;  2.  That  the  terms  used 
{kooLD.  hiuTfiov)  teach,  that  the  mode  of  using  this  ritual  water  is 
by  covering  the  bod}^  in  the  water  by  dipping;  which  is  so  essen- 
tial that  none  of  God's  redeemed  ones  failing  to  observe  such 
mode  can  rightly  receive  the  Sacraments  or  constitute  a  chui-ch 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  If  these  texts  be  interpreted  in  sub- 
jection to  Patristic  sentiment  and  practice,  much  can  be  said  in 
appai'ent  favor  of  both  these  views  ;  but  if  the  interpretation  be 
made  by  a  just  exegesis,  under  the  teaching  and  usage  of  Holy 
Scripture,  then,  neither  view  will  find  the  least  support. 


CHRISTIC  BAPTISM:  THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE 
COMMISSION— WHAT  IS  IT? 

ELEMENTS    ENTERING   INTO    THE    COMMISSION. 
John  20 :  21-23. 

"  Then  said  Jesus  to  them  again,  Peace  be  unto  you  :  as  my  Father  hath 
sent  [cLTTecTalKEv)  me,  even  so  send  I  you. 

"And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto  them, 
Eeceive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost : 

"  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ;  and  whose- 
soever sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained." 

The  Apostolical  Commission. 

Alford  (in  loco) :  "  He  confirms  and  grounds  their  Apostleship 
on  the  present  glorification  of  himself,  whose  Apostleship  (Heb. 
3:1)  on  earth  was  now  ended,  but  was  to  be  continued  by  this 
sending  forth  of  them." 

To  whatever  immediate  occasion  or  date  these  words  may  be 
assigned,  they  do  unquestionably  contain  the  Apostolical  Com- 
mission, together  with  a  statement  of  some  of  the  endowments 
and  powers  entering  into  it. 

The  word  iSar^riZu)  does  not  appear ;  but  its  very  absence  may 
be  more  instructive  than  its  presence.  The  occasion  and  the 
time  when  these  words  were  spoken  may  have  been  other  than 
such  as  is  indicated  by  the  relations  in  which  they  stand  recorded. 
There  is  no  necessary  connection  from  the  form  or  the  substance 
of  vv.  19,  20,  with  the  matter  in  vv.  21-23.  The  close  of  v.  20 
is  a  natural  close  to  the  transaction  to  which  it  refers ;  and  the 
repetition,  "Peace  be  unto  you,"  in  v.  21,  is  unnatural  as  con- 
sidered in  relation  to  an  immediately  preceding  utterance  (v.  19) 
of  like  character. 

As  John  makes  no  other  mention  of  the  Commission,  it  is  the 
more  probable  that  this  passage  does  either  directly  declare  it  or 
substantially  embrace  its  elements.  There  is  no  uniformity  of 
words  among  the  Evangelists  in  recording  the  final  Commission 

25  (  386  ) 


386  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  the  Apostles,  although  there  is  an  agreement  as  to  the  essen- 
tials which  enter  into  it. 

1.  It  is  easy  to  see  the  harmony  between  this  "  Peace  be  unto 
you,"  and  the  "  Lo !  I  am  with  you  "  of  Matthew ;  2.  In  tlie  "  as 
m}^  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you,"  there  is  more  than 
mission  and  authority  expressed  ;  there  is  included,  as  well,  the 
end  of  that  mission  and  its  bearing,  through  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  on  the  Father,  and  the  Godhead  represented  by  the 
Father,  with  whom  this  mission  and  its  end  originated.  It  stands 
related  therefore  to  that  other  statement  of  Matthew,  that  those 
who  are  discipled  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  to  be  "  baptized 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  tiie  Hoi}'- 
Ghost;"  3.  "Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  whether  designed  to 
express  the  bestowal  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  Pentecost,  or  to 
announce  the  first  fruits  and  pledge  of  that  "  promise  of  the 
Father,"  is  in  either  case  the  bestowal  of  the  pre-eminently  essen- 
tial requisite  to  the  successful  execution  of  the  Commission; 
4.  "Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit  they  are  remitted  unto  them;  and 
whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained"  is  in  equal  har- 
mony with  Luke's  "preach  repentance  and  remission  of  sins,  in 
his  name,  among  all  nations,"  and  Mark's  "Preach  the  gospel; 
he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned." 

These  ai'e  the  elements  in  the  Commission  as  stated  b}'^  John. 
They  accord  with  the  like  records  of  the  other  Evangelists. 


THE    PREACHING    OF    THE    COMMISSION. 

Luke  24 :  44-50. 

"  And  he  said  unto  them,  These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you, 
whih'  T  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were  writr 
ton  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  concerning 
me. 

"  Then  opened  he  their  understanding,  that  tliey  might  understand  the 
Scriptures, 

"  And  said  unto  them,  Thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Clirist  to 
suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day: 

"  And  that  repentance  iind  remission  of  sins  shoukl  be  preached  in  his 
name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem. 


THE    COMMISSION.  387 

"  And  ye  are  witnesses  of  these  things. 

"  And  behold  I  send  [k^ajvoarDJiu)  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  you : 
but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  until  ye  be  endued  with  power  from 
on  high. 

"  And  he  led  them  out  as  far  as  Bethany,  and  he  lifted  up  his  hands  and 
blessed  them." 

Stier. 

Stier,  YIII,  Luke  24  :  44-49:  "Luke  gives  us  a  corapendious 
selection  of  our  Lord's  words  before  his  ascension,  speaking 
further  of  it  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  In  this  epitomizing  the 
whe,n  and  the  ivhere  are  lost  sight  of.  This  not  being  well  under- 
stood by  critics  and  expositors  many  particulars  are  misarranged. 
Although  verse  44  appears  to  be  a  continuation  of  verse  43,  yet 
verse  50  shows  us  the  impossibility  of  so  reading  it.  It  involves 
too  great  a  hiatus  in  the  record,  if  we  make  the  '  led  them  out ' 
follow  immediately  on  the  first  evening.  We  must  reject  the 
reading  of  v.  44  as  in  strict  historical  connection.  Lange  would 
connect  v.  44  with  the  preceding,  and  make  v.  45  the  beginning 
of  what  extends  through  the  Forty  days.  But  v.  46  seems  to  be 
connected  with  v.  44  in  the  strictest  manner.  The  more  common 
division  made  to  begin  at  v.  49  is  altogether  forced ;  for  v.  49 
continues  the  discourse  and  intimates  a  strict  connection. 

'•'•  Schleiermacher :  'v.  44  begins  a  summary  postscript,  which 
is  independent  of  time  and  place,  and  reports  only  that  which  was 
essential  in  the  conversations  of  the  Redeemer.  It  appends  a 
very  summary  notice  of  the  departure  and  ascension  of  Christ.' 

'"'' Grotius ;  v.  44:  'The  sum  of  the  discourses  follows,  which 
occurred  during  the  Forty  days.' 

"  Ehrard  decides  also  for  such  a  resume,  and  asks,  whether  on 
this  evening  there  had  been  time  to  expound  the  Scriptures,  and 
— to  go  out  to  Bethany. 

"  When  and  where  did  He  thus  speak  ?  Bengel  thinks  that  the 
whole,  including  v.  44,  was  spoken  on  the  day  of  the  ascension. 
But  this  would  assign  too  late  a  period  for  the  opening  of  the 
Scriptures  to  the  disciples.  Lange  refers  v.  45  seq.  to  the  Ap- 
pearance on  the  mountain  in  Galilee  ;  and  as  spoken  explana- 
torily between  vv.  18,  19,  of  Matt.  28.  But  we  must  not  consent 
to  separate  these  verses." 


388  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

The  Elements  of  Harmony. 

Luke  (like  John)  makes  no  use  of  the  word  /SaTrrc'Cw  in  speaking 
of  the  Commission.  Whether  this  fact  necessitates  the  omission 
of  any  essential  feature  in  the  great  work  committed  to  the  Apos- 
tles, we  shall  be  able  to  determine  better  after  an  examination  of 
the  use  of  it  as  exhibited  in  the  records  of  Mark  and  Matthew. 
The  points  of  accord  between  this  Summary  of  Luke  and  that 
of  the  other  Evangelists  as  to  the  Commission  is  very  clear: 

L  Luke  represents  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  teaching  that  his 
atoning  death  and  triumphant  resurrection  is  the  fulfilment  of  a 
Divine  purpose  incorporated  in  all  Scripture — Moses,  Prophets, 
and  Psalms,  whereby  a  scheme  of  redemption  for  a  guilty  world 
might  be  secured. 

This  truth,  less  fully  developed,  is  the  clear  underlying  basis 
of  the  Commission  as  stated  by  Matthew  and  Mark. 

2.  Luke  is  in  literal  accord  with  Matthew  as  to  the  field  covered 
by  the  Commission — "all  the  nations,"  and  differs  from  Mark — 
"  all  the  world,"  only  in  the  lack  of  pure  literalit}^ 

3.  The  subject-matter  of  the  Commission  as  stated  by  Luke  is, 
"  the  preaching  of  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  in  His  name ;" 
which  same  duty  is  condensed  by  Matthew  into  the  one  word, 
lj.aOr)reu<jaTs — "  DISCIPLE,"  which  could  only  be  done  by  "  preach- 
ing repentance  and  remission  of  sins  in  His  name."  Mark  is 
more  full.  After  the  condensed  statement  of  this  truth  in  the 
command  "  Preach  the  gospel.,'''  he  develops  the  necessit}'  of  faith 
— "he  that  believeth''^  (upon  his  name)  "and  is  baptized"  (into  his 
name),  with  the  result — "  shall  be  saved,"  and  also  the  reverse — 
"  he  that  believeth  not "  (upon  his  name)  "  shall  be  damned."  Faith 
and  its  result,  and  unbelief  with  its  result  are  implied,  not  stated, 
in  Luke  by  I-k)  tw  ovo/mrc  (v.  47  and  again  in  Acts  2  :  38),  resting 
by  faith  "  upon  his  name,"  as  the  foundation  of  Gospel  salvation. 

4.  Luke  indicates  that  Christ  is  not  alone  concerned  in  this 
Commission  and  its  results,  by  the  appeal  to  "  Moses,  and  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,"  whei'C  the  reverse  is  shown,  and  the 
whole  Deit}'  is  exhibited  as  indissolubly  associated  with  the  prose- 
cution and  completion  of  this  great  redemption.  This  is  more 
expressly  exhibited  in  the  declaration,  "  I  send  the  promise  of 
viy  Father  upon  you ;"  which  involves  the  active  agency  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  proceeding  from  the  Father.  Matthew  brings  out, 
with  supreme  distinctness,  the  relation  of  the  Godhead  to  this 


Paul's  commission.  389 

redemption  by  announcing  a  baptism  (of  those  who  are  discipled 
to  Christ)  "  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Hol}^  Ghost."  The  special  nature  of  which  baptism  and  its 
relation  to  the  scheme  of  redemption,  will  soon  engage  our 
attention. 

It  is  evident,  that  the  exhibit  of  the  Commission  as  made  by 
John  and  Luke  presents  no  element  of  discord ;  while  the  more 
limited  reference  now  made  to  that  of  Mark  and  Matthew,  en- 
courages us  to  look  for  a  similar  result,  under  somewhat  greater 
verbal  differences. 


PAUL'S   COMMISSION. 

Acts  26  :  17,  18. 


"  Delivering  thee  from  the  people  and  from  the  Gentiles,  unto  whom  now  I 
send  {anoGTeXXu)  thee ;  To  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness 
to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God ;  that  they  may  receive  for- 
giveness of  sins,  and  inheritance  among  them  that  are  sanctified,  by  faith 
that  is  in  me." 

This  is  Paul's  Commission  as  an  Apostle.  It  is  the  same  as 
that  of  the  twelve.  Bar,ri%io  is  not  in  it.  That  which  ^anriZo)  is 
used  to  express — reconciliation  with  and  subjection  to  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost — is  in  it,  =  "  turning  them  from  the  power 
of  Satan  unto  God."  "All  nations  "  of  Matthew,  and  "  all  the 
world  "  of  Mark,  are  in  it,  =  "  delivering  thee  from  the  people 
(Jews)  and  the  Gentiles.'^  Salvation  by  discipleship  of  Matthew, 
and  by  faith  of  Mark,  is  in  it,  ^  "  that  they  may  receive  forgive- 
ness of  sins  and  inheritance  among  the  sanctified  by  faith  that  is 
in  me."  Paul  understood  his  Commission  to  be  (vv.  19,  20) 
Preach  repentance,  turning  to  God,  and  lead  holy  lives,  ==:  "  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you." 
The  Commission  of  Paul  without  fiar.zi'^u)  was  the  same  as  that  of 
Matt,  and  Mark  with  their  differently^  applied  ^anri'^u).  And  as 
/SaTTTt'^w  is  left  out  of  the  Commission  as  recorded  by  Luke  and 
John,  and  as  declared  by  Paul  to  be  received  from  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  without  detriment  to  the  Commission,  so,  (ianriZu) 
might  have  been  left  out  of  the  New  Testament  so  far  as  water  is 
concerned  and  been  supplied  b}^  its  dry  New  Testament  equiva- 


390  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

lents  "filled^'  (Acts  2  :  4),  "put  on"  (Gal.  3  :  21),  "endued" 
(Luke  24  :  49),  "  to  trust "  (1  Cor.  10  :  2  with  Ex.  14:31)  or  that 
of  the  Syriac  "  to  cause  to  stand  "  (iMssim). 

BaTzzl^u)  has  110  control  over  water  in  the  New  Testament  in  a 
single  instance. 


BAPTISM  THAT  SAVES. 
Mark  16:15,  IG. 

'0  TiiaTeiiaag  nal  (iaTCTicdelq  audrjaerai. 

"  And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature. 

"  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned." 

Salvation  by  Baptism —  What  does  it  Mean  ? 

Mark  agrees  with  John,  and  Luke,  in  making  the  sphere  of 
the  Commission  "all  the  world  "  =  "  all  the  nations;"  also,  in 
making  its  subject  "the  Gospel"  =the  atonement,  the  death,  and 
resurrection,  of  Christ — "thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer  and  to 
rise  from  the  dead ; "  and  also,  that  the  end  of  the  Commission 
was  "  salvation  "  =  "  the  remission  of  sins." 

But  Mark  has  introduced  the  word  [ia7zri%u),  which  neither  John 
nor  Luke  has  done  ;  has  he  thereby  introduced  an  essentially  new 
element  into  the  Commission,  to  wit,  a  ritual  ordinance,  and 
made  it  a  common  basis  with  faith,  for  salvation  ? 

This  is  the  question  which  arises  and  claims  considei'ation. 

The  simple  mention  in  the  New  Testament  of  baptism,  does  not 
necessitate  the  conclusion  that  reference  is  made  to  ritual  water 
baptism  ;  because  it  is  univei'sally  admitted,  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment announces  a  real  baptism,  without  water,  b}"  the  Spirit,  as 
well  as  a  ritual  baptism  with  water.  Which  of  the  two  is  meant, 
in  any  given  case,  must  be  determined  by  other  considerations 
than  the  mere  word. 

In  the  present  case,  there  are  some  (the  larger  number)  who 
advocate  a  reference  to  ritual  baptism,  and  others  to  real  baptism. 
This  diversity  of  opinion  does  not  stop  with  the  nature  of  the 
baptism,  but  reaches  into  its  form  and  moral  value  :    1.  Some  say, 


SALVATION    BY    BAPTISM — WHAT    DOES    IT    MEAN?      391 

The  baptism  is  ritual,  ivith  water,  purel}-  symbol  in  character,  and 
without  moral  value  except  as  the  truth  which  it  shadows  (remis- 
sion of  sins  by  the  blood  of  Christ  applied  by  the  Holy  Ghost)  is 
apprehended  by  faith  in  the  divine  promise,  and  obedience  is 
rendered  as  to  an  ordinance  of  God.  "  The  statement  of  Mark 
respecting  faith  and  baptism,  is  an  authoritative  assurance  that 
salvation  was  suspended  on  the  faithful  reception  of  the  gospel, 
and  submission  to  its  initiatory  ordinance.  The  faith  of  the  pro- 
fessing Christian  must  be  attested  and  sustained  by  submission 
to  gospel  requirement "  (Wilson,  Prof.  Sac.  Lit.,  Gen.  Assembly, 
Royal  College,  Belfast).  2.  Some  say :  The  baptism  is  ritual  by 
dipping  the  body  into  water,  without  which  dipping  there  is  no 
baptism.  It  is  not  said.  Without  which  dipping  there  is  no  salva- 
tion; but  saved  and  damned  are  placed  in  an  in  terrorem  relation 
to  the  dipping  so  as  to  force  into  it.  Thus  Dr.  Fuller  begins  his 
book — "  The  Act  of  Baptism.  '  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not '  (it  was  unnecessary  to 
add,  and  is  not  baptized,  for  he  that  believeth  not  will,  of  course, 
not  be  baptized,  or  if  he  be  baptized,  it  will  avail  him  nothing), 
'  shall  be  damned.''  Saved  or  damned !  These  are  solemn  thoughts, 
and  solemnly  should  they  be  pondered  by  every  man."  3.  Some 
believe  the  baptism  is  ritual,  without  reference  to  mode,  and  not 
necessary  to  salvation,  yet  possessed  of  great  spiritual  efficacy. 
"  There  is  an  absolute  necessity  that  every  human  being  should 
be  born  again.  The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  the  production  of  this  change.  Baptism  is  one  of  the  ordi- 
nary means  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  works  this  change.  This 
grace  is  offered  whenever  Baptism  is  administered,  and  is  actually 
conferred  by  the  Holy  Spirit  whenever  the  individual  receiving 
it  does  not  present  in  himself  a  conscious  voluntary  barrier  to  its 
efficacy.  In  Mark  16:16  something  is  mentioned  as  a  mean,  to 
wit.  Baptism,  and  salvation  is  in  some  8ENSE  conditioned  upon  it. 
When  men  read :  '  He  that  believeth  and  is  not  baptized  shall  be 
saved,'  they  separate  what  God  has  joined  and  contradict  our 
Lord.  Faith  is  absolutely  essential  to  salvation,  baptism  ordi- 
narily essential  only  "  (Prof.  Krauth,  Gonserv.  Beform.,  pp.  439, 
441).  "Baptismal  regeneration  is  the  distinguishing  doctrine  of 
the  new  covenant,  but  let  us  take  care  and  know  and  bear  in 
mind  what  '  Baptism  '  means  ;  not  the  mere  ecclesiastical  act,  not 
the  mere  fact  of  reception,  b}^  that  act,  among  God's  professing 
people,  but  that  completed  by  the  Divine  act,  manifested  b}^  the 


392  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  heart  and  through  the  life " 
(Alford).  4.  Some,  who  hold  that  Mark  speaks  of  ritual  bap- 
tism, believe  it  to  be  intimately  related  to  and  a  condition  of 
salvation.  "  The  view,  then,  here  held  of  Baptism,  following  the 
ancient  church  and  our  own,  is  that  we  be  ingrafted  into  Christ, 
and  thereby  receive  a  principle  of  life,  afterwards  to  be  developed 
and  enlarged  by  the  fuller  influxes  of  his  grace ;  so  that  neither 
is  Baptism  looked  upon  as  an  infusion  of  grace  distinct  from  the 
incorporation  into  Christ,  nor  is  that  incorporation  conceived  of 
as  separate  from  its  attendant  blessings"  (Dr.  Pusey,  Holy  Bap- 
tism, p.  24).  "  Baptism  is  a  sort  of  embodiment  of  the  gospel ; 
and  a  solemn  expression  of  it  in  a  single  act.  Hence  the  space 
and  the  place  assigned  to  it  in  the  Commission.  The  Christian 
Lawgiver  and  Saviour  says :  '  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved.''  ...  To  associate  faith  and  baptism  as  antece- 
dents, whose  consequent  is  salvation,  no  matter  what  the  connec- 
tion may  be,  will  always  impart  to  the  institution  a  pre-eminence 
above  all  other  religious  institutions  in  the  world.  The  Lord  does 
not  say,  he  that  believeth  and  obeys  this  or  that  moral  precept, 
shall  be  saved ;  but  '  He  that  believeth  the  Gospel  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved.'  .  .  .  The  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament, 
both  of  John  and  Jesus,  were  for  the  true,  real,  and  formal  remis- 
sion of  sins,  through  faith  in  the  Messiah  and  a  genuine  repent- 
ance toward  God"  (Alexander  Campbell,  Pres.  Bethany  Col- 
lege^ Christian  Baptism.,  pp.  257,  8).  5.  There  is  a  limited  num- 
ber wlio  deny  that  Mark  speaks  of  ritual  baptism  ;  also  denying 
that  ritual  baptism  is  to  be  perpetuated  in  the  Christian  church. 
"  As  there  is  one  Lord,  and  one  faith,  so  there  is  one  baptism. 
And  this  baptism  is  a  pure  and  spiritual  thing,  to  wit,  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  and  fire,  by  which  we  are  buried  with  Him,  that 
being  washed  and  purged  from  our  sins,  we  ma}'  walk  in  newness 
of  life :  of  which  the  baptism  of  John  was  a  figure,  which  was 
commanded  for  a  time,  and  was  not  to  continue  forever"  (Bar- 
clay, Apology.,  p.  380). 

True  Interpretation. 

All,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  who  interpret  the  language  of  the 
Evangelist  as  indicating  a  ritual  baptism,  do  so  without  having 
examined  the  question — "  May  not  this  be  the  real  baptism  b}'' 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  not  ritual  baptism  with  water  ? "     This  vital 


SALVATION    BY    BAPTISM — WHAT    DOES    IT    MEAN?       398 

issue  has  been  assumed  without  investigatiou,  and  determined 
against  the  real  baptism  of  the  Scriptures,  without  a  hearing. 
Such  assumption  is  neither  grounded  in  necessity,  nor  in  the 
warrant  of  Scripture ;  whether  regarded  in  its  general  teaching 
or  in  that  of  this  particular  passage.  That  there  is  no  necessity 
for  limiting  the  baptism  of  this  passage  to  a  rite  is  obvious,  be- 
cause the  Scriptures  furnish  us  with  a  real  baptism  by  the  Spirit, 
as  well  as  with  its  symbol  ritual  baptism,  from  which  to  choose. 
There  is  no  scriptural  warrant  in  the  general  teaching  of  the 
Bible  for  identifying  a  rite  with  salvation  ;  nor  can  such  warrant 
be  assumed  in  this  particular  passage  (which  does  identify  hap- 
tism  and  salvation),  because  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  face  of 
the  passage  to  show,  that  the  baptism  is  ritual  with  water,  rather 
than  real  by  the  Spirit.  These  points  must  be  universally  admit- 
ted: 1.  The  passage  does  not  declare  a  ritual  baptism  by  express 
statement ;  2.  It  contains  no  statement  which  involves  a  ritual 
baptism  as  a  necessary  inference ;  3.  The  Scriptures  present  a 
real  and  a  ritual  baptism,  by  the  one  or  the  other  of  which  to 
meet  the  exigencies  of  any  elliptically  stated  baptism  ;  4.  That 
baptism  which  meets,  in  its  scripturally  defined  nature  and  power, 
the  requirements  of  any  particular  passage,  must  be  the  baptism 
designed  by  such  passage. 

We  reject  ritual  baptism  from  all  direct  connection  with  this 
passage,  in  general,  because,  the  passage  treats  of  salvation  and 
its  conditions  (belief  and  baptism).  All  out  of  the  Papal  church 
admit,  that  ritual  baptism  has  not  the  same  breadth  with  belief 
as  a  condition  of  salvation,  and  are,  therefore,  compelled  to  in- 
troduce exceptions  for  which  no  provision  is  made  in  the  terms 
of  this  passage.  We  accept  the  real  baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  the  sole  baptism  directly  contemplated  by  this  passage,  in 
general,  because,  it  meets  in  the  most  absolute  and  unlimited 
manner  as  a  condition  of  salvation  the  obvious  requirement  on 
the  face  of  the  passage,  having  the  same  breadth  with  belief,  and 
universally  present  in  every  case  of  salvation. 

We  accept  this  view  in  particular:  1.  Because  it  makes  the  use 
of  "baptized"  harmonious  with  the  associate  terms,  "believeth" 
and  "  saved."  The  use  of  these  terms,  as  well  as  "  baptized,"  is 
elliptical.  "Believe"  has  in  the  New  Testament  a  double  usage; 
the  one  limited  to  the  action  of  the  intellect,  as,  "  the  devils  be- 
lieve and  tremble;"  the  other  embraces  and  controls  the  affec- 
tions of  the  heart,  as,  "  with  the  heart  we  believe  unto  righteous- 


394  CURISTIC    BAPTISM. 

iiess."  It  is  the  liigbei-  form  of  "  belief"  that  is  universall}' 
recognized  as  belonging  to  this  passage.  "  Saved,"  also,  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament,  with  a  double  application ;  as  of  the  body, 
"  all  hope  that  we  should  be  saved  was  taken  away ; "  and  of  the 
soul,  ''  He  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins."  Again  it  is 
this  higher  salvation  that  is  accepted  without  question.  So, 
"  baptized"  is  used  in  a  lo'wer  and  a  higher  meaning;  applied  in 
the  one  case  to  the  body,  as  "  I  baptize  you  with  water;"  and  in 
the  other  case  applied  to  the  soul,  as  "  He  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost."  B}'  what  just  reasoning,  now,  can  "  believeth," 
and  "  saved,"  be  taken  in  the  highest  sense,  and  "  baptized,"  in 
the  same  sentence  and  in  the  same  construction,  be  brought  down 
to  the  lowest?  We  object  to  such  diversity  of  interpretation  as 
unnatural  and  without  any  just  support.  The  only  tenable  supply 
of  the  ellipsis  must  be,  "  He  that  believeth"  (with  the  heart  upon 
Christ),  "  and  is  baptized  "  (by  the  Holy  Ghost  into  Christ)  "  shall 
be  saved"  (by  the  redemption  of  Clwist). 

2.  The  construction  allows  and  the  case  requires,  that  a  relation 
of  dependence  and  unity  subsist  between  "  believeth  "  and  "  bap- 
tized." There  is  evidently  some  vinculum  binding  these  words 
and  the  ideas  which  they  represent,  together.  Middleton  (Greek 
article,  in  loco)  says :  "  In  the  Complulens.  edit,  the  second  par- 
ticiple has  the  article,  which  would  materially  alter  the  sense. 
It  would  imply,  that  he  who  believeth,  as  well  as  he  who  is  bap- 
tized, shall  be  saved ;  whereas  the  reading  of  the  MSS.  insists  on 
the  fuUilment  of  both  conditions  in  every  individual."  This  is 
true;  but  it  is  not  all  the  truth.  This  faith  and  this  baptism  must 
not  only  not  be  disjoined  by  being  assigned  to  different  persons, 
but  they  must  not  be  disjoined  by  being  assigned  to  different 
spheres,  the  one  spiritual  and  the  other  physical;  and  being  con- 
joined, in  like  spiritual  nature,  and  meeting  together  in  the  same 
person,  the  whole  truth  requires,  that  they  shall  be  recognized 
not  as  two  distinct  things  existing  harmoniously  together,  but  as 
bearing  to  each  other  the  intimate  and  essential  relation  of  cause 
and  effect,  that  is  to  say,  the  baptism  is  a  consequence  proceeding 
from  the  belief.  As  parallel  in  construction  and  in  relation,  we 
may  take  such  phrases  as  "  He  that  drinketh  and  is  drunken;" 
"  He  that  eateth  and  is  filled  ; "  "  He  that  runneth  and  is  wearied." 
In  such  passages  it  is  evident  that  the  relation  of  drinking,  eat- 
ing, running,  to  the  associate  members  of  their  several  phrases, 
is  that  of  cause  to  effect.     A  parallelism  of  construction  may  be 


SALVATION    BY    BAPTISM — WHAT    DOES    IT    MEAN?      395 

found  in  such  other  jDhrases  as  this :  "  There  fell  on  him  a  mist 
and  a  darkness"  (Acts  13:  11).  '•'•Darkness  may  denote  the 
effect  as  distinguished  frqm  the  cause  "  (Prof.  Alexander).  "  A 
mist  and  darkness.  Cause  and  effect "  (Prof.  Hackett).  "  A  sort 
of  Hendiadis"  {Bloomfield).  '•'•  ly-ozo-  resulting  from  an  affection 
of  the  eyes  {ay'Ao^)  "  (Olshausen).  A  like  relation,  without  the 
xai,  is  seen  in  the  former  part  of  this  same  verse,  "  thou  shalt  be 
blind,  not  seeing  the  sun  ;"  "/-«^  i^Xincov^  states  a  consequence  of 
the  blindness,  hence  /j-iy,  not  ou"  {Hackett).  And  this  phrase  finds 
a  parallel  (with  y.ai  introduced)  in  Luke  1 :  20 :  "  Thou  shalt  be 
dumb  and  not  able  to  speak."  "The  words  'not  able  to  speak' 
are  added  in  order  to  explain  the  preceding"  (Kuinoel.)  "'Un- 
able to  speak'  is  merely  an  explanatory  clause  of  atw-ibv''''  (Ols- 
hausen). 

A  parallel  construction,  with  contrast  in  sentiment  and  result, 
is  seen  in  James  2  :  19,  "The  devils,  also,  believe  and  tremble." 
"  The  word  believe  is  here  used  in  a  very  wide  sense ;  for  the 
devils  perceive,  and  understand,  and  remember,  that  there  is  a 
God,  and  tremble  in  fearful  expectation  of  eternal  torments.  So 
far  is  such  a  faith  as  that  from  justifjdng  or  saving  its  possessor; 
and  yet  it  has  ■  some  efficacy,  but  in  an  opposite  direction " 
(Bengel).  This  believing  and  trembling  are  not  two  independent 
facts,  but  they  are  connected  as  cause  and  effect :  the  believing 
causes  the  trembling.  And  this  condition  of  trembling  may, 
with  the  most  absolute  propriety,  be  termed  a  baptism,,  as  this 
whole  Inquiry  demonstrates,  and  as  is  specially  shown  by  Isaiah 
21:4,  "My  heart  panted,  fearfulness  affrighted  me,"  translated 
by  the  Septuagint,  "  ^  d^^o/jJa  jis  /3arrj'C£j — Iniquity  baptizes  me,  my 
soul  is  put  into  fear."  Although  there  is  no  word  in  the  Hebrew 
corresponding  with  /5a7rTjJt«,  yet  the  thought  is  represented  by 
it  with  great  accuracy  and  force.  A  consciousness  of  iniquity 
"  affrights"  =  baptizes  into  fear.  And  belief  in  a  holy  God  bap- 
tizes devils  into  trembling  expectation  of  judgment  and  fiery  in- 
dignation, because  of  conscious  iniquity.  The  passage  might  be 
worded  thus  :  Devils  who  believe  and  are  so  baptized  shall  perish. 
The  belief,  and  the  baptism,  and  the  perishing,  will,  then,  be 
interpreted  by  the  character  of  the  subjects — "  devils."  And  the 
ellipsis  will  be  supplied  thus  :  "  Devils  who  believe  in  a  holy  God, 
and  are  thereby  baptized  into  terror  because  of  their  iniquities, 
shall  perish  with  an  everlasting  destruction,  under  the  divine 
justice." 


396  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Thus,  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  and  of  all  Greek 
usage,  it  is  settled,  that  "  belief"  can  baptize,  and  that  it  will  bap- 
tize into  a  condition  correspondent  with  the  character  of  the  be- 
liever and  the  subject-matter  of  the  belief.  While  the  belief  of 
devils,  directed  toward  a  just  and  holy  God,  baptizes  into  present 
terror,  issuing  in  everlasting  destruction  ;  the  belief  of  the  peni- 
tent sinner,  directed  toward  a  crucified  Redeemer,  baptizes  into 
Christ  (=  into  the  remission  of  sins),  and  therefore  into  present 
"peace  which  the  world  cannot  give,"  issuing  in  salvation  and  its 
everlasting  redemption. 

3.  This  interpretation  is  vindicated  by  other  passages  parallel 
in  construction  and  sentiment.  Matt.  13  :  15,  "  Lest  at  any  time 
they  should  be  converted  and  I  should  heal  them."  Here,  the 
healing  is  dependent  upon  and  is  a  consequence  of  the  conver- 
sion. Mark  4:12,"  Lest  at  an}-  time  they  should  be  converted 
and  their  sins  should  be  forgiven  them."  Here,  more  specifically, 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  placed  in  a  dependent  relation  on  con- 
version. Acts  3: 19,  "Repent  and  be  converted,  that  3'our  sins 
may  be  blotted  out."  In  this  passage  we  have  the  phrase  "  be 
converted  a7id  be  forgiven  "  resolved  into  the  form,  "  be  converted, 
that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,"  establishing  the  interpreta- 
tion as  a  relation  of  cause  and  effect.  But  more ;  we  have  a 
like  relation  established  between  Repentance  and  Conversion — 
"  Repent  and  be  converted."  Conversion  is  inseparable  from 
and  a  consequence  of  repentance.  It  is  a  matter  of  indifference 
whether  it  is  said:  "Repent  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out," 
or  "  Be  converted  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,"  or  "  Re- 
pent and  be  converted  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  This 
last  form  no  more  presents  two  separate  things  as  the  ground  of 
forgiveness  than  does  either  of  the  others.  They  all  present  one 
and  the  same  thing.  So,  it  is  alike  indiflerent  whether  it  is  said: 
"  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Clirist  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,"  or, 
"  Be  baptized  into  Christ,  putting  on  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved,"  or,  "  Believe  on  Christ  and  be  baptized  into  Christ,  and 
thou  shalt  be  saved."  The  latter  form  no  more  presents  two  di- 
verse tilings  as  the  ground  of  salvation  than  does  either  of  the 
others  ;  they  both  present  but  one  and  the  same  thing ;  an  insepa- 
ralile  consequence  implied  in  the  one  form  being  stated  in  the 
other.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  Acts  2 :  38,  "  Repent  and  be 
baptized  (believing)  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  into  the  re- 
mission of  sins."     This  passage  does  not  differ,  by  jot  or  tittle,  in 


SALVATION    BY    BAPTISM — WHAT    DOES    IT    MEAN?      397 

general  construction  or  in  sentiment,  from  Acts  3:19.  The 
ruling  element  in  both  is,  "  Repent."  On  this  depends  alike  "  the 
blotting  out  of  sins,"  and  "  the  baptism  into  the  remission  of 
sins ;"  and  between  the  resultant  thought  and  value  of  these 
phrases  there  is  Jiot  so  much  difference  as  the  dust  of  the  balance. 
These  two  phrases  differing  wholly  as  to  the  basis  in  which  they 
are  grounded,  are  yet  equal  in  a  supreme  force  and  in  absolute- 
ness of  result.  Sins  "  blotted  out  "  are  absolutely  extinguished ; 
and  the  guilty  "  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins  "  are  most  ab- 
solutely freed  from  sin  =  brought  into  a  condition  in  which  the 
remission  of  sins  has  its  completest  development. 

4.  This  interpretation  is  vindicated  by  the  most  express  state- 
ment of  Scripture.  Matthew  (3  :  2)  says,  "John  preached  (Mera- 
vo$iT£)  Repent  3'e  !"  He  says,  also,  "He  baptized  those  who  re- 
pented (eU  /xsTdvoiav)  into  repentance,"  using  water  as  a  symbol  of 
the  purified  condition  consequent  upon  true  repentance.  But 
Matthew  does  not  directly  connect  repentance  and  remission  of 
sins,  although  he  does  so  indirectly:  (1.)  By  calling  upon  men 
to  repent ;  (2.)  By  the  statement  (3  :  6)  that  the  baptized  "  made 
confession  of  their  sins  ;"  (3.)  By  refusing  (3  :  7)  to  baptize  those 
who  had  not  shown  repentance  by  a  new  life ;  (4.)  By  the  symbol 
use  of  water,  which  in  a  baptism  "  into  repentance  "  could  only 
indicate  (not  repentance  itself  but)  the  purity  consequent  upon 
remitted  sin  granted  to  the  penitent. 

This  gracious  connection  between  Repentance  and  the  remis- 
sion of  sin  which  Matthew  only  implies,  Mark  most  expressly 
states.  He  does  not,  with  Matthew  merely  say,  "John  preached, 
Repent!"  but  makes  the  fuller  statement  (1 :  4)  "  John  preached 
(ISd-Ti(T,ua  jiermioiaq  ejc  aipeaiv  dfiaprcuiv')  the  baptism  of  repentance 
into  the  remission  of  sins."  This  language,  in  view  of  the  philo- 
logical character  and  historical  usage  of  ySaTrrj'Jw,  and  the  verbal 
forms  and  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  cannot  pos- 
sibly mean  any  other  than  that  Repentance  baptizes  into  the 
remission  of  sins.  And  a  "  baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins," 
cannot  (in  view  of  the  same  determining  elements)  possibly 
mean  any  other  than  the  most  complete,  thorough,  and  absolute 
remission  of  sins.  And  the  water  which  appears  in  a  ritual  ser- 
vice based  in  such  baptism,  cannot  (in  view  of  its  use  in  all  re- 
ligious rites,  heathen  and  Christian)  possibly  indicate  other,  than 
the  purity  consequent  on  the  remission  of  sins  as  related  to  an 
antecedent  repentance. 


398  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Now,  as  Repentance  baptizes  into  the  remission  of  sins,  and  as 
Conversion  baptizes  into  the  remission  of  sins,  so  does  Faith 
baptize  into  the  remission  of  sins.  This  was  taught  b}'  .John,  as 
interpreted  by  Paul  (Acts  19:4):  "John  verily  baptized  tlie 
baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should 
believe  on  Ilim  which  should  come  after  him,  that  is  on  Christ 
Jesus."  The  phraseology  nsed  by  Paul  "(iW  ruartuaujnt  ei-;  rov 
£p-j^6ij.t'Mi<^)  tliat  they  should  believe  (entering)  into  the  Coming 
One,"  is  grounded  in  the  same  conception  as  ^an-iZiu  ek^  and 
the  ellipsis  necessarily  implied,  should  be  supplied  thus — That 
they  should  believe  and  *e  baptized  {tlq  rov  tpyojizvov^  i.e.,,  ek  rov 
Xptarov  "" Irjlyiiuv)  into  the  Coming  One,  i.  e.,  into  Christ  Jesus, 
there  would  not  be  between  the  statement  as  it  stands,  and  the 
statement  as  thus  completed,  so  much  as  an  infinitesimal  differ- 
ence. Paul  represents  Faith  as  immediately  baptizing  into 
Christ,  who  has  now  come,  while  John  teaches,  that  Repentance 
baptizes  immediatel}-  into  the  remission  of  sins,  through  the 
coming  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  to 
whom  the  faith  of  the  repenting  ones  looks  forward. 

Repentance  and  Faith  as  baptizing  agencies  are  exhibited  in 
Luke  24  :  47  :  "  That  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be 
preached  {Itu  tw  woiian  aurov)  iqjon  his  name;"  where  repentance 
is  exhibited  as  causative  of  the  remission  of  sins,  and  faith  is  im- 
plied in  the  preposition  t-'i,  all  resting  "upon"  that  "only  name 
given  under  heaven  among  men  wherelw  we  must  be  saved." 
And  all  tliis  is  confirmed  by  Luke's  report  of  Peter's  preaching 
under  this  commission  in  Acts  2  :  38  :  "  Repent  and  be  baptized 
{im  Tip  o'Mi/iart)  (believing)  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  (^(V), 
into  the  remission  of  sins."  Here  the  addition  of  "  baptized 
into  "  does  not  increase,  or  diminish,  or  modify  in  any  wa}'  the 
sentiment  in  Luke  24  :  47 ;  it  merely  introduces  a  form  of  expres- 
sion wliich  gives  to  it  an  additional  and  vivid  force.  The  com- 
mand of  Clnist  to  preach  '•  llei)entance  and  Remission  of  sins 
upon  his  name  "  was  followed  to  the  letter  when  Peter  preached 
"Repent  and  be  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins  upon  the 
name  of  Jesus  Cln-ist."  Had  he  preaclied  a  ritual  ordinance  in 
answer  to  the  desi)airing  cry  "  What  must  we  do  ?"  and  announced 
RepentMuce  and  a  ritual  l)aptisni  as  necessary  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  he  would  have  been  utterly  false  to  his  trust  and  trampled 
the  Commission  of  Jesus  Christ  ihto  the  dust. 

The  faith  whicli  is  iu)plied  in  tlie  irfi  of  Luke  and  Peter  is  ex- 


SALVATION    BY    BAPTISM  —  WHAT    DOES    IT    MEAN?      399 

pressed  by  Paul  in  answer  to  the  same  anguished  cr}^,  "  What 
must  I  do  to  be  saved?"  (Acts  16:31)  "Believe  (sm)  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved?"  There 
are  not  three  distinct  ways  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  salvation 
— Repentance,  and  Conversion,  and  Faith  ;  but  these  three  agree 
in  one,  uniting  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh 
awa^'  sin  and  the  only  name  of  salvation,  through  whom  the^^  re- 
ceive their  pov/er,  while  giving  self-testimony  to  the  regenerating 
work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  soul. 

Ma3'  we  not  add  that  these  things  give  to,  and  receive  con- 
firmation from,  the  interpretation  of  Feb.  6:2,  as  teaching  that 
Repentance  and  Faith  are  "doctrines  which  baptize  into  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  into  Christ,"  and  should  be  so  received  as 
among  the  first  "principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ?" 

5.  This  interpretation  receives  an  interesting  and  forcible  sup- 
port from  the  Syriac  Version.  Dr.  Murdock,  translator  of  the 
Syriac  New  Testament  into  English,  in  an  article  on  "The  Sj'riac 
Words  for  Baptism,"  in  the  Biblotheca  Sacra,  Oct.  1850,  saj's : 
"The  declaration  in  Mark  16:  15,  16,  which  in  the  Greek  reads, 
'Go  3'e  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture: He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved;  but  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned'  would  in  the  Syriac  read, 
'He  that  believeth  and  standelh  fad  shall  be  saved;  but  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned.'  According  to  the  Greek  our 
Lord  seems  to  state  two  conditions  of  salvation,  namely,  believing, 
and  being  immersed  or  washed  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity; 
but  according  to  the  Syriac  he  states  in  realit}'  only  one  condi- 
tion, namely,  that  o^  believing  and  standing  fast  in  our  confidence 
in  the  triune  God.  And  therefore,  very  pertinently,  the  last  part 
of  the  apostolic  commission  omits  the  clause  respecting  the  bap- 
tism, and  simply  says,  '  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.' 
Such  views  of  these  texts  are  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  doctrine 
everywhere  inculcated  in  the  New  Testament,  that  it  is  only  the 
steadfast,  piersevering  Christian  that  will  be  saved.  ...  If  the 
Jesuit  missionaries  had  obtained  their  ideas  of  the  nature  and 
import  of  Christian  baptism  from  the  phraseology  of  the  Syriac 
Bible,  they  could  hardl}^  have  adopted  the  belief  that  b}^  stealthil}^ 
sprinkling  water  upon  an  ignorant  Pagan,  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  they  converted  him  into  a  real  Christian,  and  plucked 
him  from  perdition.  Nor  would  some  Protestants  have  been  led 
to  believe  that  the  mere  rite  of  baptism  translated  a  person  into 


400  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

the  Kingdom  or  Church  of  God,  entitled  him  to  divine  grace,  and 
was  necessary  to  a  man's  salvation.  .  .  .  The  Apostles,  when 
writing  or  speaking  in  Syriac,  did,  probably,  designate  baptism 
by  a  verb  and  its  derivations,  which  properly  signify  to  stand  up, 
to  be  firm,  erect,  and  stable,  like  pillars.  Of  course  both  modes 
of  designating  baptism  rest  on  good  authority;  both  are  suitable, 
and  it  is  allowable  to  Christians  to  adopt  either." 

Dr.  Murdock  speaks  with  just  reserve  when  he  says,  "  The 
Greek  seems  to  state  two  conditions  of  salvation."  If  the  baptism 
spoken  of  was  a  ritual  observance,  there  would  indeed  be  two 
conditions  of  salvation,  because  a  spiritual  faith  and  a  physical 
rite  must  of  necessity  be  two  things  and  not  one  thing ;  and  if 
they  have  been  conjoined  for  salvation  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
there  is  no  power  by  which  they  can  be  disjoined.  But  Dr.  Mur- 
dock shrinks  from  accepting  for  truth  a  seeming  duality,  because 
of  antagonism  with  the  entire  scope  of  Scripture  teaching.  His 
embarrassment  arises  from  supposing  that  the  baptism  spoken  of 
as  a  condition  of  salvation  is  a  ritual  baptism,  and  not  that  bap- 
tism "into  Christ"  which  is  by  faith  begotten  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
That  Repentance  baptizes  "into  the  remission  of  sins"  is  a  truth 
of  Scripture  directly  stated  and  as  certain  as  any  truth  of  Mathe- 
matics. That  Faith  baptizes  "into  Christ"  is  not  as  distinctly, 
verbally  stated,  and  yet  is  clearl}^  taught.  It  is  involved  in,  and 
in  the  relations  of,  i-\  ruj  ov6/j.ari  of  Luke  (24: 47),  and  t-l  rw  o'^o/iarc 
"IrjfTou  XpiffTou  of  Peter  (Acts  2:  38),  and  the  -KTzsbauxn  dq  zw  ipy^o- 
(jievov  of  Paul  (Acts  19:  4),  compared  with  his  baptism  ei?  A'ptffzdv 
"IrjffoTjv  (Rom.  G  :  3),  ek  A'ptfrrdv  (Gal.  4 :  27),  and  his  "baptisms  of 
doctrine"  {fianTKrpMv  dtda^^y^q)  (=  Repentance  and  Faith)  (Heb.  6: 
1,  2),  and  all  as  bearing  upon  the  declaration  of  Mark — "  He  that 
believeth,  and"  so,  by  faith,  "is  baptized,"  eiq  Xpiardv,  "shall  be 
saved."  Tlierefore  the  statement  of  Cremer  (s.  v.  jSanrt^w)  in  his 
New  Testament  Lexicon  is  well  founded  when  he  says:  "As  the 
baptism  of  John  was  characterized  as  a  (idizTiapa  pzravoiaq  a  bap- 
tism of  repentance,  so  the  baptism  of  Christ  may  be  characterized 
as  a  fid-THTpa  TcifTvetue;  a  bap>tism  by  faith.''' 

The  Greek  Testament  is  quite  adequate  to  furnish,  within  itself, 
evidence  that  Mark  declares  not  two,  but  one  only  condition  of 
salvation  ;  yet  this  evidence  is,  as  uniquely  as  powerfully,  sus- 
tained l)y  the  Syriac. 

Dr.  Murdock  labors  under  a  misconception  when  he  supposes 
that  the  baptism  of  Mark  must  be,  as  that  of  Matthew,  "in  (into) 


SALVATION    BY    BAPTISM — WHAT    DOES    IT    MEAN?      401 

the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinitj'."  There  is  as  much,  indeed  much 
more,  difference  between  the  baptism  eiq  Xpcardv  and  the  baptism 
elq  TO  ovotia  too  TlaTpbc;^  ...  as  there  is  between  the  baptism  ei^ 
IJSTdvoiav  and  tlie  baptism  elq  atpzaiv  afrnpTiw^j.  There  is  the  greatest 
diversity  as  to  the  immediate  and  independent  character  of  a 
baptism  into  repentance  and  a  baptism  into  the  remission  op 
SINS ;  and  3^et  there  is  the  greatest  unity  in  their  common  and 
equal  relation  to  salvation.  So,  considered  independently,  there 
is  the  greatest  diversity  between  a  baptism  into  Christ,  the  in- 
carnate and  crucified  Redeemer,  and  a  baptism  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  revealed 
Triune  God,  as  such,  neither  incarnate  nor  crucified.  But  in  the 
scheme  of  redemption  this  diversitj^,  in  particular,  embraces  an 
ultimate  unity;  the  baptism  of  the  guilty  in^o  Christ  being  ante- 
cedent and  in  order  to  the  baptism  of  the  "  washed  by  the  blood 
of  the  Lamb  "  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  more  of  this  when  we  consider  the  lan- 
guage of  Matthew. 

Finally:  The  interpretation  which  makes  this  baptism  a  ritual 
ordinance  is  full  of  embarrassment.  (1.)  It  gives  countenance  to 
the  Romish  doctrine  that  ritual  baptism  is  essential  to  salvation ; 
(2.)  To  the  doctrine,  held  outside  of  the  Romish  church,  that  if 
this  rite  is  not  absolutely  and  solel}^  necessary  and  adequate  to 
salvation,  it  only  comes  short  of  such  character ;  (.3.)  To  the  doc- 
trine that  the  rite  does  and  must,  of  itself,  effect  some  result 
accompanying  salvation  ;  (4.)  To  the  doctrine  of  that  class  of 
Baptists  who  believe  that  the  rite  constitutes  a  condition  of  sal- 
vation in  the  same  sense  as  Repentance  and  Faith,  and  especially 
is  necessary  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins;  (5.)  To  the  doctrine 
of  that  class  of  Baptists  who  shrink  from  saying  that  a  rite  is 
essential  to  salvation,  yet  hold  up  {in  terrorem)  a  dipping  into 
water  as  essential  to  a  bajjtisni;  (6.)  It  constrains  those  vvho  do 
not  believe  that  the  rite  is  a  condition  of  salvation,  nor,  in  itself, 
efficient  for  spiritual  good,  but  only  a  ritual  symbolization  bj" 
water  of  the  real  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  soul,  to  assume 
the  task  of  explaining  away  what  is  the  apparent  and  natural 
interpretation  on  the  admission  that  the  baptism  spoken  of  is  a 
ritual  ordinance.  On  the  other  hand,  under  the  interpretation  that 
the  baptism  is  into  Christ  by  faith,  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
every  embarrassment  disappears,  and  the  doctrine  is  brought  into 
direct  and  full  harmony  with  the  whole  scope  of  Scripture  teaching. 

26 


402  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

DaTTTt^o)  used  elliptically. 

How  groundless  is  the  idea,  that  fia7:ri!^w  used  elliptically  or 
absolutel}'  requires  the  introduction  of  water  to  expound  the  bap- 
tism will  be  manifest  by  glancing  at  a  few  cases  of  such  usage 
taken  from  Classical  writers. 

"  'Eyu)  pou<;  l3a-Ti!^6fj.evov  to  ij.tipdy.iov^  I  perceiving  that  the  youth 
was  baptized ;"  Plato  Eiithydernus,  c.  vii.  A  baptism  hy  sophis- 
tical questions  (into  mental  bewilderment).    There  is  no  water. 

"  ^ E/.7zXri<r(izt  TTjV  (I'v/ji^,  af^io  -KfjoaiteaoM  xai  •/.a-efid~Tif>e^  Stuns  the 
Soul,  falling  suddenly  upon  it,  and  baptizes  it;"  Achilles  Tat., 
I,  3.  A  baptism  by  profound  emotion  {into  mental  apathy). 
Here  is  no  place  for  water. 

"  J{aTa,3a7LTCffd7J(TeTac  p.oi  to  ^y^v  [xyj  [:Ski~()VTi  D-oxipav,  My  life  will  be 
baptized,  not  seeing  Glycera; "  Alciphr.,  Epis.  II,  3.  A  baptism 
hy  varied  engagements  {into  death).    There  is  no  water. 

^^"TffTspov  IfianTcaav  ttjv  noXtv,  Afterward  they  baptized  the  city  ;" 
Josephus,  Jew.  War,  lY,  3.  A  baptism  by  want  of  food  (into 
famine).     Water  can  render  no  aid  here. 

"  '0  [ianTt'l.oiisvov  iupojv  tov  aOhov  Kijj.wva,  Who  found  the  miserable 
Cimon  baptized;"  Libanius,  Ejnst.  962.  A  baptism  by  sorrow 
{into  wretchedness).     Water  can  find  no  place  here. 

'''■"EtSdTZTKTs  oXyjv  i/.el  Trfy'Aaiav,  He  baptized  there  all  Asia;" 
Eimerius,  XV,  3.  A  baptism  by  battle  {into  profound  disaster). 
Water  is  not  needed  even  in  this  naval-battle  baptism. 

^'-'OXiyirj  w  ki3a-zi%tTo,  The  number  left  being  small  were  bap- 
tized ; "  Libanius,  Emp.  Jul.,  c.  71.  This  was  by  excessive  duties 
{into  FAILURE  OF  ACCOMPLISHMENT).     Water  brings  no  help. 

"  M-Tj-u}  i3zfSaTiTi(TiJ.i'M)v,  Not  yet  baptized  ; "  Plutarch  Banq.,  Ill,  8. 
A  baptism  by  wine  {iyito  drunkenness).     Water  will  not  do. 

It  is  uunecessar}'^  to  multiply  cases.  They  prove  two  things: 
1.  Whenever  a  baptism  is  stated  without  an  explanatory'  adjunct, 
there  is  no,  of  course,  calling  on  water  to  fill  the  deficiency ;  2. 
Faith  is  as  competent  an  agency  for  baptizing  the  soul  into 
Christ,  as  any  agenc}',  for  an}'  baptism,  ever  used  by  Jew  or 
Greek. 

The  evidence  for  a  clear  and  harmonious  scriptural  interpreta- 
tion of  this  passage  seems  to  be  complete. 


INTO    THE    NAME.  403 


THAT    BAPTISM   WHICH    IS    ULTIMATE    AND    ETERNAL   INTO   THE 

NAME    OF    THE    ONLY   LIVING   AND    TRUE    GOD, 

FATHER,   SON,  AND   HOLY   GHOST. 

Matthew  28  :  19,  20. 

HopevdevTEg  ovv  iJ.a6r]TEVGaTe  irdvra  to.  IdvT],  paTt-'il^ovTeg  avrovg  eiq  to  ovofia 
rov  Ilarpof,  Kal  tov  Tlov,  nal  tov  'Ajlov  HvevfjaroQ, 

AiSaaKovTSQ  avToiig  Tj]pelv  Tvavra  baa  ivETEiTiafirjv  v/xtv.  Kai  l6ov,  eyu  /led'  v/xuv 
El/ill  naaaq  rag  r/fiepag  Eug  rfjg  cvvrE\Eiag  tov  aluvng,     'A/irjv. 

"  Go  ye  therefore,  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 

"Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you:  and  lo!  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 
Amen." 

The  Redeemed  reconciled  and  made  subject  to  the  Triune  God. 

The  passage  now  about  to  be  considered  contains  the  last 
words  on  earth  of  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  who  came  into 
our  world  "to  fulfil  all  righteousness"  by  obedience  to  the  Law 
and  by  endurance  of  the  penalty  of  the  Law,  in  order  to  redeem 
his"  people  from  all  evil  (subduing  their  eninity,  removing  their 
guilty  renewing  them  in  the  divine  image,  making  them  willingly 
subject  to  the  living  and  true  God),  and  so,  "  making  peace."  No 
passage  of  Scripture  has  a  higher  value  than  this.  No  passage 
of  Scripture  is  richer  in  instruc^on  or  has  a  deeper  reach  into 
eternit^^  And  no  passage  of  Scripture  so  develops  in  simple 
grandeur  the  scheme  of  redemption  as  embracing  all  the  world, 
through  all  the  ages,  and  terminating,  where  it  begun,  in  the  one 
living  and  true  God.  Its  marvellous  comprehension  not  only  em- 
braces the  redemptive  scenes  of  earth,  but  encircles  the  enthroned 
Redeemer  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  where  he  reigns  pos- 
sessed of  "  all  power  in  heaven  and  on  earth  "  as  Head  over  all 
things  to  the  Church,  even  until  all  enemies  being  subdued,  he 
■shall  give  back  this  Messiah  gift,  and  "God — the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost"—"  shall  be  all  in  all." 


404  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

A  passage  of  such  unspeakable  importance  might  be  supposed 
to  have  an  interpretation  so  clear  and  precise  as  to  meet  with 
universal  acceptance.  But  it  is  not  so.  Few  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture have  exhibited  a  more  unsettled  and  varied  interpretation. 
Such  want  of  accord  gives  warning  of  a  radical  defect  somewhere. 
It  is  our  business  to  discover,  if  possible,  where  it  is,  and  what  it 
is.  To  this  end  any  interpretation  conceived  in  that  spirit  of  deep 
reverence  which  the  passage  eminently  demands,  should  be  wel- 
comed, and  thoughtfully  considered. 

There  is  an  interpretation,  which  comes  commended  as  being 
the  outgrowth  of  the  radical  meaning  of  ^artri'^ui  in  its  universal 
usage,  and  having  been  applied  in  an  unswervingly  uniform  ap- 
plication through  all  the  line  of  this  Inquiry,  whose  worth  may  be 
finally  tested  by  its  fitness  to  elucidate  these  last,  momentous 
words  of  our  divine  Redeemer. 

But  before  making  its  direct  application  it  will  be  profitable  to 
examine  some  of  the  many  translations  and  interpretations  which 
have  been  offered  without  meeting  with  general  acceptance. 


Translation. 

In  the  various  translations  of  this  passage  there  is  no  material 
difference  except  as  to  the  words  /SaTrrt'^w  £iq.  There  is  a  very 
general  assent  to  the  translation  which  makes  imOt^reixjars  mean  to 
make  disciples^  to  disciple^  rather  than  "  to  teach."  Some  (Stuart) 
think,  that  jSanrc^M  may  be  translated  to  wash;  in  its  broad  re- 
ligious application,  inclmVmg  sjirinklhig^  and  pouring,  as  methods 
for  effecting  the  cleansing.  Some  (Williams,  Beecher,  Godwin) 
would  translate  to  purify  ;  leaving  the  method  of  purifying  un- 
limited. The  objection  to  such  translations  is  not,  that  the  word 
cannot,  or  does  not,  have  such  meanings;  but  when  it  has,  it  is 
the  result  of  absorbing  a  j^h  rase  which  was  expressive  of  such  idea ; 
while  liere,  the  plirase  is  not  absorbed,  and  consequently  the  verb 
must  be  received  in  its  essential,  and  not  in  any  acquired  mean- 
ing. Patristic  writers  use  this  word  superabundantly  to  express 
such  acquired  meaning;  but  it  is  verj;- doubtful  whether,  in  its 
absolute  use,  it  is  ever  so  used  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  more 
probable,  that  an  ellipsis  should  always  be  supplied.  Others 
(Carson,  A.  Campbell)  insist,  that  the  translation  should  be  to 
dip;  while  others  (Arnold)  insist  as  absolutely  that  the  transla- 


INTO    THE    NAME.  405 

tion  should  be  to  plunge ;  and  yet  others  (Fuller)  advocate  im- 
merse. 

The  objections  to  c?^p  and  to  plunge  are :  1.  These  words  ex- 
press severally  a  definite  act,  essentially  different  in  nature  and 
power,  and  therefore  one  word  cannot  express  two  essentially 
diverse  conceptions ;  2.  Neither  word  can  possibly  express  the 
force  of  the  Greek  word  because  definite  action  belongs  to  each, 
while  definite  action  has  no  place  in  the  essential  nature  of  the 
word  they  claim  to  represent.  The  objections  to  immerse  are  :  1. 
It  is  used,  by  the  friends  of  dipping  into  water  as  baptism,  for 
the  equivalent  of  dip^  which  is  as  far  from  the  truth  as  darkness 
is  from  light ;  2.  The  actual  usage  of  this  word  by  these  writers 
is  deceptive  ;  sometimes  it  is  used  to  express  the  momentary  put- 
ting into  and  withdrawal  of  an  object,  and  again,  it  is  used  to 
express  an  object  being  within  an  element  without  having  ever 
been  put  into  it,  or  ever  taken  out  of  it,  which  double  meaning  it 
is  impossible  for  any  one  word  to  express ;  3.  If  immerse  were 
consistently  used  as  the  equivalent  of  dip  there  would  be  neither 
necessity  nor  advantage  for  using  it  at  all;  and  it  would  be  just 
as  helpless  to  express  the  Greek  word  as  the  rejected  dip ;  4.  If 
immerse  should  be  used  at  its  true  value  (putting  into  without 
limitation  of  time),  it  would  become  worthless  on  the  hands  of 
those  who  insist  ou  putting  men  and  women  into  water,  for  in 
such  case  (as  they  confess)  they  would  have  to  drown.  The 
simple  remedy  is  to  baptize,  as  God  enjoins,  without  putting  into 
water. 

We  understand  this  word  here,  as  in  every  other  like  syntactic 
relation  whether  among  Classic,  Jewish,  or  Inspired  writers,  as 
demanding  for  its  object  withinness  of  position,  without  regard 
to  the  manner  of  introduction  and  without  limitation  of  time  for 
its  withdrawal. 

There  is  a  very  general  agreement  as  to  the  translation  of  d-:. 

Among  Baptist  writers,  Carson,  Dagg,  Wayland,  Judson,  as 
well  as  Alexander  Campbell  (in  another  branch)  unite  in  saying, 
that  this  preposition  should  not  be  translated  ^)^,  nor  wnto,  nor 
for^  nor  in  order  to^  nor  with  reference  to,  but  by  into. 

Writers  who  differ  from  these  as  to  the  administration  of  the 
ordinance,  such  as  Prof.  Stuart,  President  Halley,  Prof.  Wilson, 
and  critical  Scholars  generally,  unite  in  tbe  same  translation, 
i7ito. 


406  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Conant  is  an  exception  to  this  general  agreement.  He 
argues  against  the  translation  into  and  insists  on  that  of  ^r^,  in 
the  sense  with  reference  to.  He  admits  that  the  literal  transla- 
tion is  "  into  the  name,"  but  says :  "  Into  the  name  is  not  an 
English  phrase,  and,  though  the  literal  form  of  the  Greek,  does 
not  give  the  sense."  In  support  of  this  view  he  says  :  "  In  the 
name  is  the  proper  English  expression  of  ek  to  wt)fia]  as  in 
chapter  18  :  20,  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  and  with 
the  same  ground  idea,  but  with  a  different  application  of  it, 
in  chapter  10:  41,  in  the  name  of  a  pro2')het,  etc.  The  idea  of 
reference  to  is  the  ground  meaning  of  etc  in  these  cases  ;  and 
this  with  all  it  includes,  is  expressed  by  the  English  form,  in  the 
name.'''' 

Whatever  may  be  the  translation  of  dq  in  the  passages  cited, 
no  light  is  thereby  thrown  on  the  passage  before  us,  because  the 
character  of  the  verbs  with  which  the  preposition  is  in  construc- 
tion differs  radically.     In  the  phrase  avayw  dq  or  Ss/o/jLat  e;?,  there 
is  nothing  in  the  verb  to  give  a  specific  meaning  to  the  preposi- 
tion ;  but  in  the  phrase  (ianrilu)  ei<;  there  is  an  essential  power  of 
the  verb  which  fixes  definitely  the  meaning  of  the  preposition. 
The  verb  demands  in  such  construction  withinness  for  its  object 
and  necessitates  ei<;  to  indicate  the  passage  of  such  object  out  of 
one  condition  i^ito  another  condition,  without  removal.     There  is 
no  question  as  to  the  propriety  of  translating  ei(;  diversely,  in  di- 
verse relations;  but  the  question  is  this:  Can  ek  be  translated 
otherwise  than  by  into  when  construed  with  jSaTzrc'^oj,  or  with  any 
other  verb  of  like  character  ?     Can  this  preposition  in  the  phrase 
(I  Cor.  15:54)  xaT£7:60rj  ei-;  vi'zoc,  have  any  other  meaning  than 
into?     Does  not  the  character  of  the  verb  (siuallow  down)  neces- 
sitate such  meaning?     And  in  the  phrase  (1  Tim.  6  :  9)  iSuffO^ouffi 
ek  oXsOfwv,  is  there  not  a  like  necessity  for  the  translation  into  ? 
Can  a  verb  which  carries  its  object  into  an  abi/ss,  be  associated 
with  ei<;  in  any  other  sense  than  into  f     The  same  necessity  ob- 
tains in  like  usage  of /JaTrrctw.     Dr.  Conant  does  not  object  to  the 
translation  of  iSa-rH^u)  ek  by  baptize  into,  per  se,  for  he  uniformly 
gives  such  translation  whenever  this  phrase  appears  in  the  Classics. 
Nor  does  he  confine  such  translation  to  cases  of  literal  and  physi- 
cal use,  but  extends  it  to  the  tropical  and  figurative,  also.  .  The 
Fame  translation  appears  repeatedly  in  his  version  of  the  New 
Testament.     It  is  only  in  connection  with  et?  to  ovoiia  that  this 


INTO    THE    NAME.  407 

prejwsition  is  translated  in  (Acts  8  :  16  ;  19:5).  But  there  is  no 
reason  in  woiju  more  than  in  a'^ataOriaiav^  uttvov,  or  Xpiazuv^  for  modi- 
fying the  preposition.  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose,  that  the  Greek 
eU  TO  o'/ofia  corresponds  with  the  English  "in  the  name."  The 
Greek  form  h  zuj  ovo/ian  corresponds  both  in  form  and  in  force 
with  the  English  phrase.  These  two  Greek  forms  are  not  equiva- 
lent and  must  not  be  confounded.  When  Peter  commanded  the 
lame  man  "  tn  the  name  (Iv  rw  d^'o/j.arc)  of  Jesus  Christ  to  rise  up 
and  walk,"  the  Greek  phrase  and  the  English  are  in  entire  cor- 
respondence. So,  when  Peter  (Acts  10  :  48)  commanded  Corne- 
lius and  friends  "m  the  name  {i.v  tw  6'/6tj.aTi)  of  the  Lord,  to  be 
baptized,"  there  is  the  same  correspondence;  "in  the  name" 
being  dependent  on  "  command,"  and  not  on  "  baptize." 

The  active  form  oi  f^o-ri'^a}  does  not  in  the  New  Testament,  nor 
out  of  it,  take  ^i^  after  it  to  indicate  the  complementary  idea  of 
the  verb.  When,  therefore,  l^aTtrHlcu  is  associated  with  elq  to  o)/()fjLa 
it  is  not  to  be  converted  into  ^i^  roi  o'^S/iazc^  but  is  to  be  interpreted 
in  the  same  manner  as  every  other  like  construction. 

As  Dr.  Conant  translates  "  i3ei3o.7TTctTrj.iv<)v  e}?  dvmffOrjrriav  baptized 
INTO  insensibility^''^  and  ^^  iSanzd^dnsvo^  e;?  unvov  baptized  into  sleep,^^ 
and  ^'^  fiar,riZ,ou(j(.  elq  Tiopvecav  baptize  INTO  fornication,^^  and  "  c^Jar- 
TcirOriTS  £c<;  Xpiarov  baptized  INTO  Christ,^^  so,  i3ei3aTtTiff[iivoi  ei-;  to  ovofia 
TOO  liupiou  'Irjffoo  must  be  translated  baptized  into  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  j3a7:Tc!^ovTe^  eic  to  ovoixa  too  TlaTpd^,  .  .  . 
must  be  translated  baptizing  into  the  name  of  the  Father.  .  .  . 
The  phrases  baptize  elq  to  ovo/ia  into  the  name  expressing  the 
ideal  element  into  which  the  baptized  object  passes,  and  baptize 
iv  TO)  6W)iJ.aTt  in  THE  NAME  declaring  the  authority  by  which  the 
baptism  is  administei'ed,  are  fundamentally  diverse  in  concep- 
tion and  must  be  so  exhibited  in  the  translation. 

Professor  Schaff  excepts  to  the  translation  of  Dr.  Conant  {in 
the  name)  and  to  his  vindicatory  remark  ("baptize  into  the 
name,  is  not  English")  by  appealing  to  the  fact,  that  the  Author- 
ized Version  translates,  "  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ "  (Rom.  6:3); 
"  baptism  hito  death  "  (v.  4) ;  "  baptized  into  Christ "  (Gal.  3  :  2t)  ; 
and  asks,  "  Why  not,  then,  say  with  equal  propriety,  '  to  bap- 
tize i»<o  the  name  of  Christ,'  i.e.,  into  communion  and  fellow- 
ship with  Him  and  the  holy  Trinity  as  revealed  in  the  work  of 
creation,  redemption,  and  regeneration?"  (Lauge,  Matt.  28:19, 
note). 

Alford  says :    "  It  is  unfortunate  that  our  English  Bible  does 


408  CHRTSTIC    BAPTISM. 

not,  here,  give  us  the  force  of  eig.  It  should  have  been  into  (as 
in  Gal.  3  :  27)  both  here  and  in  1  Cor.  10:2,  and  wherever  the 
expression  is  used^ 

A  writer  in  the  National  Baptist  (May  8,  1813)  makes  a 
plea  for  Dr.  Conant's  translation  thus:  "I  have  felt  a  serious 
objection  to  into  the  name  after  baptize  or  immerse,  because  that 
construction  seems  to  me  to  indicate  the  element  in  or  into  whicU, 
literally  or  metaphorically,  the  person  is  placed  by  the  act — Im- 
mersed into  water,  into  (a  state  of)  death,  into  suffering,  into  busi- 
ness. It  appears  to  me  that  we  cannot  thus,  either  literally  or 
metaphorically,  be  baptized,  immersed,  plunged,  into  the  revealed 
character  and  relations  ('  name ')  of  the  Trinity ;  but  rather  we 
are  immersed  in,  or,  if  3'ou  please,  into  water,  with  reference 
TO  (unto?)  the  name,  i.e.,  the  revealed  character  and  work  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit.  Hence  I  am  not  clear  that  we  can  im- 
prove upon  the  old  familiar  phrase  {'•  in  the  name')  unless  we  use 
several  words,  and  say,  with  reference  to.'''' 

It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  those  who  seek  to  ground  their 
theory  of  dipping  into  water  in  the  Scriptures,  should  feel  a 
serious  objection  to  baptizing  into  the  name,  "  because  that  con- 
struction seems  to  indicate  the  element  into  which,  metaphori- 
cally, the  person  is  placed  by  the  act."  This  writer  "  seems  to 
indicate"  the  dilemma  in  which  he  and  his  friends  are  placed, 
which  is  simply  this — change  our  theory  or  change  the  word  of 
God.  So  long  as  the  Bible  teaches  as  its  baptism,  a  baptism  into 
repentance,  into  remission,  into  Christ,  into  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  repudiates  persistently  and  absolutely  a  bap- 
tism into  water,  just  so  long  must  that  Bible  "  seem  to  indicate" 
an  ideal  element  for  its  baptism,  and  a  ritual  symbolization  of 
that  baptism  with  water;  and  the  theory  must  be  discarded  both 
as  impossible  in  its  nature  (a  dipping  is  not  a  baptism)  and  in 
contradiction  to  the  most  express,  reiterated,  and  unvarying  tes- 
timony of  the  word  of  God. 

Various  Views — Baptist. 

"To  disciple  all  nations,  is  to  bring  them  by  faith  into  the 
school  of  Christ.  The  persons  whom  this  commission  warrants 
to  be  l)ai)tized,  are  scholars  of  Christ,  having  believed  in  him  for 
salvation,  'Baptizing  them  in^o  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'     It  is  into  the  faith  and  sub- 


VARIOUS    VIEWS — BAPTIST.  409 

jection  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  that  men  are  to  be 
baptized"  (Carbon,  173).  "'£!?  to  ovop.a  in  the  name,  intends  into 
the  belief,  .  .  .  instructed  in,  and  brought  over  to  the  faith  of 
Christ,  which  is  the  sense  I  contend  for"  (Gale,  212).  "We 
must  take  the  command,  'disciple  all  the  nations'  in  the  best 
sense,  make  true,  genuine  believers,  bring  sinners  to  Christ  and 
make  them  his  disciples,  .  ,  .  The  baptizing  was  to  be  coexten- 
sive with  the  discipling.  .  .  ,  Grammarians  teach  that  a  participle 
following  a  verb,  is  frequently'  used  in  Greek  like  the  gerund  in 
do  in  Latin,  signifying  the  means.  This  is  not  an  invariable  rule. 
The  participle  following  the  verb,  in  the  Greek  Testament,  very 
seldom  signifies  the  means.  More  frequently  tlian  not  the  action 
of  the  participle  follows  that  of  the  verb.  '  In  those  days  came 
John  the  Baptist  preaching^  (Matt.  3:1).  John  did  not  come  by 
means  of  preaching.  '  There  came  a  certain  man  kneeling '  (Matt. 
IT  :  14).  He  kneeled  when  he  had  come.  'I  sat  daily  with  you 
teaching^  (Matt.  26  :  55).  Christ  did  not  sit  by  means  of  teach- 
ing. '  The  priests  went  into  the  temple  accomplishing  the  ser- 
vice'(Heb.  9  :  6).  The  service  was  accomplished  after  entering 
the  temple.  Disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  (that  is  the  dis- 
ciples) 'in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost'"  (MoreU,  55  ;  Edinburgh).  "  The  Greek  verb  bap- 
tizo  signifies  to  inimerae.  B}'  immersion,  we  mean  an  entire  cov- 
ering, or  a  complete  surroundiJig  with  some  element.  We  main- 
tain that  the  action  alone  (immersion)  is  enjoined,  not  the  mode 
of  immersion.  The  word  dijy,  however  unadvisedly,  may  have 
been  used  by  some  Baptist  w,riters  in  the  same  sense  in  which  we 
are  now  using  the  word  immerse,  although  without  any  explana- 
tory remark  affirming  this  ;  and  certainly  the  assertion  of  Dr. 
Carson,  that  the  Greek  verb  invariably  means  to  dip  lias  been 
animadverted  npon  with  sufficient  severity  by  those  who  have  ex- 
cluded from  the  English  word  every  idea  but  that  of  putting  the 
object  into  the  element.  In  Matt.  28: 19,  this  act  is  performed 
on  the  assenting  believer  into  the  name  of  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Hoi}'  Spirit.  This  is  the  Christian  rite"  {Ing- 
ham,, 26  ;  London).  "  Go  make  disciples  or  Christians,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  etc.,  i.  e.,  into  subjection  and^ 
obedience  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is 
the  Grand  Commission.  We  believe  that  the  Scriptures  repre- 
sent the  immersion  of  a  professed  believer  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  and  that  only,  to  be  Christian  baptism.     The  immersion 


410  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  the  subject  in  vAilar  i.s  essential  to  tlie  ordinance"  {M.  P. 
Jc/mdi.  12).  "The  ordinance  ofliaptism  i.s  to  he  administered  by 
tiie  initn(.'rsi(*n  of  the  body  in  water;  baptizing  tiie  candidate 
'  INTO  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.' 
We  prefei-  inloU)  in.  Into  is  th(;  proper  translation.  It  expresses 
the  m(;:iMing  of  the  ordinance  whicli  tiie  otlier  {in)  does  not.  In 
the  name  of  any  one  means  merel}'  hij  the  authority  of,  and  noth- 
ing more;.  T\\ii  NAME,  here,  has  a  totall}'  different  signification. 
To  baptize  into  any  one  is,  into  a  profession  of  faitii  of  any  one, 
and  sincere  obedience  to  him.  Tiiis  is  the  meaning  of  being  bap- 
tized into  tiie  name  of,  or  into  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ohost.  We  could  baptize  anything  in  the  name.  .  .  . 
Komanists  baptize  bells,  standards,  or  anything,  in  the  name  of 
.  .  .  We  cannot  baptize  into  the  Father,  .  .  .  anything  but  a 
ratioval  being"  (President  Wayland.,  89).  "  Tiie  form  of  expres- 
sion is  al\va\'s  baptizing  in  (h)  or  info  (si-:)  something.  In  water 
in  Jordan,  ia  Fnon,  ///  the  Holy  Spirit  (l'^)  ;  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  into  tiie  name  of  Van\,  into  ni}'  own  name,  into  what  were 
ye  baptized,  into  John's  b!ij>tism,  into  Moses,  into  Christ,  into  his 
death,  into  deatii.  I>aptism  being  in  or  into  something  must  ])e 
immersion  i/ifo  water"  (//oo///,  2()0  ;  London).  "  The  use  of  ek  in 
tli(!  New  Testament,  has  a  reference  to  the  action  performed  by  the 
person  baptized.  Thus  the  Jews  were  immersed  in  the  cloud  and 
sea  while  they  were  entering  i>?/o  Moses.  It  is  not  intimated  that 
as  many  as  were  baptized  into  Christ,  had  not  been  baptized  in 
water,  but  that  they  were  baptized  in  water  when  they  entered  iJilo 
Christ.  They  were  immersed  (entering)  into  Clirist,  and  such  per- 
sons must  have  entered  'into  his  deatli.'  ...  To  the  same  point 
must  be  leferred  the  into  in  our  Lord's  commission.  The  words  do 
not  imply  that  the  persons  should  be  baptized  in  the  vanie  of  the 
leather,  etc.,  instead  of  in  tvater  ;  nor  are  the  words  into  the  name., 
etc.,  intended  to  form  the  disciples'  authority  for  baptizing  the  con- 
verts, for  this  is  ex[)ressed  in  the  imperative  verb  70;  but  it  is  in- 
tended to  describe  those  persons  wlio  are  to  be  baptized.  The 
wliohi  meaning  is  expressed  thus:  Go.^  make  disciples,  baptizing 
in  WMter  those  who  enter  «///'j  the  name,  or  resign  themselves  to  the 
authority,  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Enter  into 
tlie  name  is  even  stronger  than  the  expression  resign  tJiemselues  to 
t/ie  avtliority.  .  .  .  'i'he  most  vital  jiarts  of  Christian  duty  have, 
in  past  time,  been  baptized  in  pollution  and  error,  and  in  rising 
from  this  lilthy  submersion,  it  requires  equal  care,  not  to  retain 


BAPTIST    VIEWS    UNSATISFACTORY.  411 

an  adhesive  wrong,  and  not  to  reject  a  Divine  riglit  "  (>S7oiv'/,  500  ; 
London).  "The  commission,  '  (io  ye  baptizing'  gives  no  indi- 
cation that  the  ordinance  was  tliereby  instituted.  It  regards  tlie 
ordinance  to  be  administered,  as  it  does  tlie  gospel  to  be  preaclied, 
as  already  known,  a  thing  in  existence.  John's  baptism  and 
Christian  ba[)tism  are  in  essentials  identical.  The  time  of  the 
institution  of  baptism  is  thus  fixed  at  the  beginning  of  John's 
ministry"  {Prof.  Pepper,  27;  ]iaj)t.  Pah.  Soc).  "There  is  a 
phrase  which  no  Christian  can  misunderstand,  and  have  a  just 
and  true  idea  of  his  relation  to  G(jd.  I  mean  our  baptismal 
formula:  'Into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  IIol}'^  Ghost.'  .  .  .  Our  immersion  is  not  merely  immersion  ; 
it  is  irnmer.Hion  '  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  tlie  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Bare  immersion  no  more  exhausts  the  idea 
of  immersion  into  Christ,  than  the  door  of  a  temple  exhausts  the 
idea  of  the  temple  "  {Prea.  Jiruner,  Ofikaloosa  Collc(jc.i  Disciple 
Jiapt.).  "  This  is  the  law  of  Christian  baptism  ;  the  institution 
and  origin  of  it.  John's  baptism  was  not  Christ's  baptism.  John 
was  not  sent  by  the  liord  Jesus  Christ,  but  by  his  Father.  It 
should  be  translated — 'AH  auUiorilij''  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is 
given  to  me  :  go  you,  therefore,  and  make  di.'iC'ijd.es  of  all  'naf/ion^, 
baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  leachinr/  them  to  observe,  etc."  {Alexander 
Campbell.,  Baptism,  220).  "  The  immersion  of  a  professing  be- 
liever, into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  is  the  only  Christian  baptism"  (Adon.  Judfion,  Ser- 
mon, 55). 

Unsalisfaelory. 

These  views  are  very  unsatisfactory.  They  are  loose,  confused, 
discordant,  and  untrue  ;  both  as  exjjository  of  this  particular  pas- 
sage, and  of  the  general  teaching  of  Scripture.  There  is  a  verbal 
acknowledgment  of  the  vital  relation  between  [ianri'^dv-eq  and  ei^ 
TO  uvofia,  together  with  a  formal  translation  based  on  such  relation, 
and,  then,  in  the  exposition  there  is  an  utter  abandonment  of  such 
relation,  and  the  establishment  of  another  (with  water)  utterly 
diverse  in  nature,  on  which  the  interi)retation  of  the  passage  is 
made  to  turn.  To  vindicate  this  separation  of  what  God  has 
joined  together,  and  to  justify  this  conjunction  of  what  God  has 
put  widely  ai)art,  not  one  word  is  offered.  It  is  like  everything 
else  under  the  theory,  assumed  without  proof  and  in  contradic- 


412  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

tiou  of  the  most  express  statements  of  inspiration,  as  well  as  of 
the  uniform  sentiment  and  practice  of  the  friends  of  the  theor}'  in 
all  like  cases  out  of  the  word  of  God. 

Dr.  Conant  stands  almost,  if  not  absolutely,  alone  as  exempt 
from  this  condemnation.  He  denies  (tacitly  not  expressly)  any 
living  relation  between  /Sarrt'Covre?  and  ei<;  t6  ovofj-a^  and  thus,  is  at 
liberty  to  translate  the  preposition  uncontrolled  by  the  otherwise 
determining  power  of  the  verb,  as  also,  to  establish  another  and 
essentially  diverse  relation  between  the  verb  and  water,  ellipti- 
cally  introduced  for  the  purpose.  By  this  means  Dr.  Conant  ex- 
tricates himself  from  that  absurd  entanglement  in  which  his  friends 
involve  themselves,  by  the  admission  of  an  organic  relation  in  the 
phrase  fianTi^oweq  ei^  to  ov<>;j.a  on  which  the}'  base  their  translation, 
and  then,  establishing  another  relation  with  water  out  of  which 
they  deduce  their  interpretation.  But  no  attempt  to  dissolve  the 
unity  between  this  verb  and  its  preposition  can  ever  succeed. 
It  is  ingrained  in  the  usage  of  Heathen,  Jewish,  and  inspired 
Writers.  We  may  therefore  hope  that  it  (together  witli  its  neces- 
sar}^  translation)  will  be  accepted  by  Dr.  Conant,  and  that  his  em- 
inent scholarship  will,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  reject  the 
double  and  impossible  relation  of  [iaTzriZto  with  water.  "  Ulfilas," 
in  the  National  Baptist,  jnstly  troubled  by  those  portentous  words 
— haptizing  into  the  name  of  the  Triune  God,  pleads  for  a  bap- 
tizing INTO  water ^  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  to  escape,  what  the 
words  of  inspiration  "seem  to  indicate" — the  ideal  baptism  of 
Christ's  redeemed  ones  into  the  fully  revealed  Deity.  But  it  costs 
too  much  to  maintain  a  theory  at  the  expense  of  discarding  the 
word  of  God.  And  when  the  unhappy  theorj'  of  a  dipping  into 
water,  as  God's  baptism,  shall  have  been  corrected  and  forgotten 
in  the  lapse  of  untold  ages,  then,  will  "  the  discipled  of  all  nations" 
be  found  "  baptized  into  tue  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  "  therein  to  abide  forever,  even  forever 
and  ever.  A  correspondent  ("J.W.James")  of  the  Christian 
Standard  (Disciple  Baptist),  is  in  trouble,  as  well  as  "  UKilas," 
about  this  formula.  He  asks:  "By  what  authority  do  we  use 
these  words,  '  into  the  name  of  the  Father,'  ....  when  they 
nowhere  appear  in  the  baptisms  by  the  Apostles  in  the  Acts?" 
The  Editor  replies :  "  We  have  no  right,  from  the  mere  silence  of 
the  historian  in  Acts,  to  suppose  that  the  Apostles  disregarded 
their  instructions,  but  rather  that  the  fact  of  baptism  necessarily 
involved  the  use  of  the  commanded  formula.     The  fact  generally 


OTHER    VIEWS.  413 

stated  in  the  Acts  is — not  that  they  were  not  baptized  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  but — that  they  were 
baptized  in  or  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ ;  the  authority  and 
saving  power  of  Christ  being  tlie  leading  object  in  the  mind  of 
the  narrator." 

This  answer  is  unsatisfactory:  1.  Because  it  assumes  that  the 
Apostles  were  commanded  to  baptize  (ritualW)  "  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  .  .  .  ."  which  is  the  point  at  issue  ;  2.  Because  it 
misinterprets  Acts  2  :  38,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  {upon  (stti)  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ)  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  and  Acts  10: 
48,  "  He  commanded  them  {in  (iv)  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ),  to 
be  baptized,"  as  parallel  and  equivalent  to  baptism  "  into  (d?)  the 
name  of  the  '  Father,' "...  and,  3.  Because  he  omits  to  state,  that 
"  the  narrator  "  does  expressl}^  and  explicitly  declare,  that  bap- 
tism was  administered  (Acts  8:16;  19:  5)  ^Hnto  (e^?)  the  name 
OP  THE  Lord  Jesus."  Now,  unless  "  the  name  Jesus  Christ  " 
(a  name  obtained  only  by  the  incarnation  of  "  the  Son  "  and  ex- 
pressive of  that  incarnation  and  of  the  redemption  to  be  secured 
through  that  incarnation)  be  the  same  as  the  Name  of  the 
Father  (God  unincarnate),  and  of  the  Son  (God  essentially,  as 
distinguished  from  the  God-Man,  =  the  Lord  Jesus),  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  (God  unincarnate),  then,  baptism  "  into  the  Name 
of  THE  Lord  Jesus,"  is  not  the  same  as  baptism  "n?to  the  Name  of 
THE  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  the 
Apostles  were,  either,  not  commanded  to  baptize  (ritually)  into 
the  Name  of  the  Father,  ....  or  they  did  not  conform  to  such 
command  in  baptizing  (ritually)  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

Other  Views. 

PusEY,  Hohj  Baptism,  62  :  "  St.  Cyprian  felt  the  '  Name  of  God ' 
to  be  God  himself,  and  connected  the  indwelling  of  God  with  our 
baptism  into  his  Name.  The  extreme  reverence  of  the  Jews, 
wiiereby  they  shrunk  from  uttering  the  incommunicable  Name  is 
far  nearer  the  right  feeling,  than  the  careless  wa^'  in  which  modern 
criticism  treats  the  indications  of  a  mystery  lying  concealed  under 
that  Name.  When  the  Lord  directs  to  '  baptize  all  nations  into 
THE  Name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,'  a  very 
little  thoughtfulness  would  connect  it  with  that  Name,  '  where- 
with the  Father  keeps  those  whom  He  hath  given  to  the  Son,  that 
they  maj'  be  one  as  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  one.'  The  being 
'  baptized  into  the  Name '  of  the  Three  Persons  of  the  undivided 


414  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Triuity,  is  no  mere  profession  of  obedience,  sovereign!}',  belief, 
but  (if  one  may  so  speak)  a  real  approi)riation  of  the  person  bap- 
tized to  the  Holy  Trinit}^,  a  transfer  of  him  from  the  dominion  of 
Satan  to  Them,  an  insertion  of  him  within  Their  blessed  Name, 
and  a  casting  the  shield  (to  speak  humanly)  of  that  Almighty 
Name,  over  him ;  that  Name,  at  which  devils  tremble  and  are 
cast  out  thereby,  '  into  which  a  man  runneth  and  is  safe.'  .... 
It  was  not  then  mere  glowing  language,  when  the  fathers  spoke 
of  the  baptized  being  'fenced  round  by  the  Trinity,'  or  the  like; 
and  in  that  they  press  the  force  of  '  being  baptized  into  the  Name 
of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,'  as  something  real,  some- 
thing efficient,  an  actual  communion  with  the  Blessed  Trinit}'^, 
thej'  adhere  more  to  the  analogy  of  faith,  and  the  usage  of  other 
Scripture,  and  the  literal  meaning  of  the  text,  than  they  who 
would  interpret  it  of  the  mere  commission  given  to  the  minister 
of  baptism,  and  are  withal  at  a  loss  to  say  what,  'to  bai)tize  into 
the  Name  of  can  literally  mean,  or  how  they  obtain  the  sense, 
which  they  vaguely  attach  to  it." 

Barclay,  Apology,  402:  "The  Greek  is  et?  rd  ovo/m,  that  is, 
into  the  7iame ;  now  the  name  of  the  Lord  is  often  taken  in  Scrip- 
ture for  his  virtue  and  power.  Now  that  the  apostles  were  to  bap- 
tize the  nations  into  this  name,  virtue,  and  power,  and  that  they 
did  so,  is  evident  by  these  testimonies,  '  That  as  many  as  were 
baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ;'  this  must  have  been  a 
baptizing  into  the  name,  i.  e.,  power  and  virtue,  and  not  a  mere 
formal  expression  of  words  adjoined  with  baptism.  .  .  .  Perhaps 
it  may  stumble  the  unwary  and  inconsiderate,  as  if  the  verj'  char- 
acter of  Christianity  were  abolished,  to  tell  them  plainly  that  this 
Scriptiu'e  is  not  to  be  understood  of  baptizing  with  water,  and 
that  this  form  of  '  baptizing  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit,'  hath  no  warrant  from  Matt.  28,  etc.  If  it  had  been  a  form 
prescribed  by  Christ  to  his  apostles,  then  surely  the}'  would  have 
made  use  of  that  form  in  the  administering  of  water  baptism  to 
such  as  they  baptized  with  water;  yet  there  is  not  a  word  of  this 
form  in  any  sucli  case  of  baptism.  But  it  is  said  of  some.  Acts 
8 :  K),  19  :  5,  '  they  were  baptized  in  (into)  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus ;'  by  which  it  yet  more  appears,  that  either  the  author  of 
this  history  hath  been  very  defective,  who  having  so  often  occa- 
sion to  mention  tliis,  yet  omitted  so  substantial  a  part  of  baptism 
(which  were  to  accuse  the  Holy  (Jhost,  l)y  whose  guidance  Luke 
wrote  it),  or  else  that  the  apostles  did  in  no  ways  understand  that 


OTHER   VIEWS.  415 

Christ  by  his  commission  did  enjoin  them  to  such  a  form  of  water 
baptism,  seeing  they  do  not  use  it." 

Fairbairn,  Hervi.  3Ian.,  314:  "To  be  baptized  into  a  person, 
into  Christ,  for  example,  or  into  his  bod}',  means,  to  be  through 
baptism  formally  admitted  into  personal  fellowship  with  Him,  and 
participation  in  the  cause  or  work  associated  with  his  name ;  that 
they  were  baptized  into  the  faith  of  His  person  and  salvation,  or 
into  the  profession  and  hope  of  all  that  His  name  indicates  for 
those  who  own  His  authority,  and  trust  in  His  merits." 

J.  A.  Alexander,  Comm.  Acts  8  :  12,  16:  "The  other  subject 
of  his  preaching  was  the  name  of  Jeaus  Christ,  i.  e.,  all  denoted 
by  these  names,  one  of  which  means  the  Saviour  of  his  people, 
and  the  other  their  Messiah,  or  Anointed  Prophet,  Priest,  and 
King.  Into  this  name,  i.  e.,  into  union  with  Christ,  and  subjec- 
tion to  him,  in  all  these  characters,  the  Samaritan  believers  were 
introduced  by  the  initiatory  rite  of  baptism,  v.  16,  Into  the  narhe, 
i.  e.,  into  union  with  him,  and  subjection  to  him,  as  their  Sovereign 
and  their  Saviour." 

Beecher,  Bajjfisvi,  206  :  "  Wh}'  is  there  a  commission  given  to 
baptize  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  none  in  Luke  and  John  ?  The 
reply  is,  that  a  commission  to  baptize  is  in  fact  a  commission  to 
purify,  that  is,  a  commission  to  remit  sins,  and  in  Luke  and  John, 
the  disciples  do  receive  a  commission  to  remit  sins.  ...  In  short, 
Christ  died  as  the  Lamb  of  God  to  take  away  the  sins  of  the 
world,  and  the  great  business  of  the  apostles  was  to  publish  to 
the  world  the  great  doctrine  of  the  remission  of  sins,  through  his 
death,  and  the  terms  on  which  it  could  be  obtained,  and  to  estab- 
lish the  rite  by  which  this  purgation  from  sin  should  be  shadowed 
forth  and  commemorated  in  honor  of  the  Trinity,  and  especially 
of  that  Spirit  b}'  whom  this  atonement  was  made  effectual  to  purge 
the  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God.  '  Go  ye, 
therefore,  teach  all  nations,  purifying  them  (that  is  remitting  to 
them  that  repent  and  believe,  their  sins)  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  " 

Prof.  Godwin,  Christian  Baptism,  151,  London:  "It  has  been 
supposed  that  in  Matt.  28:  19  we  have  the  institution  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  Cliristian  baptism,  and  also  the  form  of  words  to  be 
used  in  the  administration  of  the  rite.  John  3  :  22,  4  :  1,  clearly 
show  that  the  rite  of  Christian  baptism  existed  long  before.  There 
is  nothing  in  this  commission  to  make  it  more  probable  that  they 
had  not  before   baptized  Jews,  than  that  they  had  not   before 


416  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

taught  Jews.  Had  this  been  a  form  of  words  for  the  administra- 
tion of  baptism,  the  expression  would  rather  have  been — Baptiz- 
ing them,  saying,  I  baptize  thee.  etc.  There  is  no  indication  of 
the  use  of  this  form  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  great  object 
of  baptism  is  denoted  by  the  terms,  '  For  the  Father,  and  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost.'  The  name  of  a  person,  by  a  Hebrew  idiom, 
indicates  the  person  himself." 

Calvin,  Instit.  Ill,  376 :  "  They  err  in  this,  that  they  derive 
the  first  institution  of  baptism  from  Matt.  28  :  19,  whereas  Christ 
had,  from  the  commencement  of  his  ministry,  ordered  it  to  be  ad- 
ministered by  his  apostles.  .  .  .  The  command  here  given  by 
Christ  relates  principally  to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel :  to  it 
baptism  is  added  as  a  kind  of  appendage.  He  speaks  of  baptism 
in  so  far  as  the  dispensation  of  it  is  subordinate  to  the  function 
of  teaching.  Teach  all  nations  (Comm.).  Here  Christ  makes  the 
Gentiles  equal  to  the  Jews.  Baptizing  them.  Partly  that  their 
baptism  may  be  a  pledge  of  eternal  life  before  God,  and  partly 
that  it  may  be  an  outward  sign  of  faith  before  men.  For  we  are 
all  baptized  by  one  Spirit  (Comm.  1  Cor.  12:  13).  We  are  in- 
grafted by  baptism  into  Christ's  body.  .  .  .  Lest  any  one,  how- 
ever, should  imagine  that  this  is  effected  by  the  outward  sj^mbol, 
he  adds  that  it  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Bengel,  Comm.  Matt.  28:  19:  "The  verb  !J.a0rjTe6etv,  signifies 
to  make  disciples  ;  it  includes  baptism  and  leaching  ;  cf.  John  4  : 
1,  with  the  present  passage,  ek  rd  o'^o;j.a,  into  the  name.  This 
formula  of  baptism  is  most  solemn  and  important ;  in  fact  it  em- 
braces the  sum  of  all  piety.  .  .  .  The  Jews  as  being  already  in 
covenant  with  God  {the  Father)  by  circumcision  were  to  be  bap- 
tized in  the  name  (ini  rw  ovo/xan)  of  Christ,  and  to  receive  the 
gift  of  /he  Holy  Spirit:  the  Gentiles,  as  being  wholly  aliens  from 
God,  Avere  to  be  baptized  '  into  the  name  {elq  -u»  vvoria)  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost'  (Acts  2 :  38)." 

Olshausen,  Comm.  Matt.  28:  19:  "Baptism  was  not  now  in- 
stituted for  the  first  time,  but  was  appointed  by  Christ  for  every 
one  who  should  afterwards  enter  the  church,  and  at  the  same 
time  filled  with  power  from  on  high.  Some  have  misunderstood 
this  passage,  as  if  the  meaning  of  the  words  had  been  Jirst  in- 
struct, and  tlien  baptize.  But  the  two  participles  ^aTzri^ovrsi;  and 
iit8d(Ty.ovTtq  are  precisely  what  constitute  the  ;w.Orj-eu£iv.  In  the 
apostolic  practice  instruction  never  preceded  baptism.  Baptism 
followed  upon  the  mere  confession  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 


OTHER    VIEWS.  417 

Afterward  he  participated  in  the  progressive  courses  of  instruc- 
tion which  prevailed  in  the  church.  All  the  nations.  The  whole 
human  race  is  the  object  of  Christ's  reconciling  agency.  .  .  .  The 
meaning  of  the  words  iSa-Kri^siv  acq  to  ovo/ia  to  baptize  into  the  name, 
is  best  learned  from  baptism  into  the  7iame  of  Paul,  into  Moses. 
Baptizing  into  any  one,  signifies  baptism  as  involving  a  binding 
obligation  ;  a  rite  whereby  one  is  pledged ;  and  the  sublime  object 
to  which  baptism  binds,  consists  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 
'  Name '  signifies  the  very  essence  of  God  himself.  The  Divine 
power  is  wedded  to  the  human  soul,  which  thus  becomes  itself 
the  parent  of  a  higher  heavenly  consciousness.  .  .  .  The  question, 
'  Whether  the  Lord  intended  to  establish  a  fixed  formula  of  bap- 
tism ?'  would  not  have  arisen,  had  the  other  portions  of  the  New 
Testament  shown  that  the  disciples,  in  administering  baptism, 
employed  these  words.  But,  instead  of  this,  we  find  that,  as  often 
as  baptism  is  mentioned,  it  is  performed  only  etc  or  im  to  ovufia, 
iv  Tuj  ovo/ian  ' l-qavu,  or  Xpcffrou.^^ 

Stier,  VIII,  M.att.  28 :  18-20,  "A  sound  exegesis  demands  that 
we  rightly  translate  imd-^Ts.6<TaTs,  and  establish  its  true  connection 
with  [ianriZovre^.  That  exegesis  is  alone  right  which  makes  the 
two  following  participles  subordinate  to  the  one  Imperative.  It 
is  more  than,  and  different  from,  the  baptism  of  John.  '■Name,'' 
ovofjM,  is  never  in  the  New  Testament  construed  with  a  Genitive 
rei,  non  personse.  The  unity  of  the  three  '  persons  '  of  the  one 
Divine  nature  is  held  fast  and  witnessed  by  the  to  wo/ia.  'We 
regard  it  as  saying — Into  the  name  of  the  Three,  who  are  One, 
into  the  Three-One  God '  (Meyer).  What  means  into  or  in  the 
NAME  ?  E]<;  TO  ovotjM  cannot  be  simply  equivalent  to  h  tm  ovo/j.aTt, 
which  only  occurs  in  Acts  10:  48,  where  ^v  is  for  ek,  or  teaches 
that  those  Gentiles  were  baptized  in  the  full  and  plenary  authority 
and  will  of  Christ.  In  the  same  depth  of  meaning  as  we  so  often 
find  e}q  deov,  eiq  XptaTov,  iv  dsuj,  we  are  to  be  baptized  into  the 
Three-One.  In  connection  with  the  dipping  into  water,  there  is 
the  wonderful — Baptize  ye  (say — I  baptize  thee)  into  the  name  of 
God,  the  triune  God !  There  is  a  translation  into  communion  of 
life  with  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  in  this  dipping  into  their 
name ;  the  baptized  become  translated  into  the  power  and  nature 
of  God.  .  .  .  Did  Christ  intend  by  elq  to  wopa  to  give  a  form  of 
words,  which  must  necessarily  be  used,  as  a  formula,  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism  ?  Bengel  thinks  that  the  Jews  were  to 
be  baptized  into  the  name  of  Jesus  alone.    Another  writer  attempts 

27 


418  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

to  prove  that  the  Apostles  baptized  the  Gentiles  into  the  Father, 
the  Jews  into  the  Son,  and  John's  disciples  into  the  Holy  Ghost! 
But  hovv  can  this  be  a  formula  necessary  to  be  used  when  we  find 
from  Acts  2 :  38  onwards  onl}^  a  baptizing  in  or  into  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  or  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  perfect  Trinitarian  formula 
never  being  once  mentioned?  Zinzendorf's  marvellous  device  to 
reconcile  the  command  of  Christ  and  the  practice  of  the  Apostles 
is  to  make  e;'?  to  ovo/m  identical  with  iv  -w  dvo<m-i^  meaning  to  bap- 
tize in  the  authority  of  the  Triune  God.  He  supposes  that  they 
baptized  merel}^  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  into  Jesus ;  and  the 
revelation  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  m3'stery  of  the  Holy  S[)irit,  be- 
longed to  the  discipHna  arcani  among  the  Gentiles,  and  tlierefore 
the  Apostles  never  uttered  the  three  names  at  once  in  baptizing. 
Lange  says,  the  expression  in  the  Acts  is  not  the  description  of 
the  apostolical  act  in  baptism,  bitt  onl3'^  a  definition  of  Christian 
baptism,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Jewish  baptizing.  Thiersch^ 
'That  the  sacred  administration  might  be  more  dogmatically  or 
more  liturgicall}'^  referred  to  in  the  several  cases,  with  reference 
ratlier  to  its  influence,  or  rather  to  its  rite.''  Neandcr  sa3's,  '  It 
cannot,  at  least,  be  proved  from  these  passages  that  the  perfect 
formula  was  not  iu  use,  for  there  is  no  literal  baptismal  formula 
described,  prominence  being  given  only  to  the  characteristic  aim 
of  baptism.'  Olshaunen  adopts  the  same  view  and  says,  'Acts 
19 :  2,  5  ;  Tit.  3 :  4,  So  mention  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
connection  with  baptism,  that  a  reference  to  the  formula  is  highly 
probable.'  Storr  says,  '  Tlie  expression  in  the  Acts  may  be  an 
abbreiiation.  For  this  the  y??\s^  h'O/y/  of  tlie  formula  would  not  be 
so  appi'opriate  as  the  second,  as  not  sufficiently  distinguishing 
Christian  baptism  from  tliat  of  the  Jews.'  In  the  four  historical 
passages  there  is  a  close  connection  with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  while 
in  the  description  of  the  baptism  He  is  not  directly  named.  In 
Acts  2:38,  the  entire  formula  on  Peter's  lips  at  this  time  would 
have  been  inappropriate  and  stiff,  putting  the  letter  harshly  Jirst. 
In  Acts  10:48,  the  iv  rw  mop.ari  nib  Kofiiou  admits  of  another  mean- 
ing, denoting  the  obligation  and  commission  of  the  Apostle  =^He 
commanded  them  to  be  baptized  precisely  as  the  Lord  commanded. 
But  in  Acts  10:5,  the  connection  demands  the  most  exact  speci- 
fication of  the  true  bai)tism — of  that  baptism  in  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  named  and  offered  as  present  and  immediately  oper- 
ating; it  is  strange  that  this  should  be  \Vanting  (/"the  full  formula 
was  always  and  essentially  introduced.     In  Acts  8:  16,  it  is  not 


OTHER    VIEWS.  -  419 

appropriate  to  interpret  this  as  meaning  that  they  were  expressly 
baptized  into  the  name  of  the  H0I3'  Ghost,  whom,  nevertheless, 
they  had  not  received.  The  iioynv  lSzi3a7:Tt(7,'j.i'^<)'.  appears  to  define 
the  formula  which  was  used,  as  not  mentioning  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"  Voss  seeks  to  demonstrate  by  many  of  the  fathers,  and  most 
of  the  schoolmen,  that  Christ  did  not  bind  the  power  and  validity 
of  baptism  to  the  express  utterance  of  these  three  names.  He 
seems  to  be  in  a  great  measure  right.  But  there  is  assuredly — 
and  this  remains  absolutely  fixed — no  other  real  and  essential 
baptism  of  Christ  than  that  which  is,  according  to  its  meaning, 
design,  and  power,  into  the  name  of  the  Three-One.  This  is  the 
sure  meaning  of  the  word  of  institution,  and  must  be  maintained 
when  heretics  would  change  it,  or  when  the  full  meaning  of  the 
faith  is  not  understood.  Otherwise,  here  as  everywhere,  the 
essential  point  is  not  the  letter  but  the  spirit.  Hence  we  prefer 
to  say  with  Calvin:  'We  see  that  the  complement  of  baptism  is 
in  Christ,  whom  therefore  we  may  rightly  call  the  proper  object 
of  baptism.  Whatever  benefits  and  gifts  may  be  the  result  of 
baptism  are  all  found  in  the  name  of  Christ  alone.'  We  agree, 
also,  with  the  still  plainer  declaration  of  Neander:  'It  is  never- 
theless probable  that  in  the  original  apostolical  formula  only  this 
one  reference  (to  the  name  of  Christ)  was  made  prominent.' 
Luther  rebukes  those  '  who  with  furious  zeal  pour  out  their  con- 
demnation upon  those  who  should  say — I  baptize  thee  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  (the  form  of  the  Apostles  as  we  read  in  Acts),  and 
would  allow  no  validity  in  any  other  form  than  this — /  baptize 
thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,^  etc.  We  would  let  the  Greeks 
say  as  they  do — '  Let  this  servant  of  Christ  be  baptized ;'  we 
would  not  dishonor  the  sacrament  by  a  superstitious  adherence 
to  names  and  words. 

'''■Baptizing  is  followed  b}'  teaching,  which  is  parallel  with  it. 
Both  are  included  in  the  discipling.  The  first  '  them  '  in  our 
text  singled  out  the  individuals  of  'the  nations,'  whether  adults 
or  children,  for  baptizing;  the  second  'them,'  therefore  repeated, 
means  plainly  the  p-aOrj-suOivrai;,  those  who  had  become  diseiples 
and  were  baptized^ 

Halley,  Sacraments,  290,  London  :  "  Are  we  bound  by  the 
terms  of  the  Commission  to  administer  baptism  according  to  the 
form  of  words  there  prescribed?  The  command  of  our  Lord 
seems  to  be  so  clear  and  absolute,  as  to  admit  of  no  exception. 
I  do  not  see  how  any  person  can   '  baptize  into  the  name  of  the 


420  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  without  men- 
tioning the  names  of  these  Divine  persons.  I  dare  not  assert 
that  baptism,  in  the  name  of  Christ  only,  would  require  to  be  re- 
peated in  the  full  and  complete  formula.  It  is  true  that  in  the 
Acts  persons  are  said  to  have  been  '  baptized  into  the  name  of 
Jesus,'  but  the  expression  may  denote  that  they  received  Chi'is- 
tian  baptism.  I  do  not  assert  that  the  precise  words  are  essen- 
tial, for  if  they  were  we  must  use  a  Greek  formulary ;  but  the 
distinct  recognition  of  the  Persons  is  not  external  form,  but  the 
great  truth  of  the  service.  Athanasius  and  others  declare  such 
baptism  to  be  void  as  was  performed  without  the  mention  of  the 
Trinity.  This  was  not  the  general  opinion,  as  in  man}^  instances, 
heretics  who  had  only  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  were 
admitted  into  the  church  without  re-baptism.  Trine  immersion 
became  catholic,  as  an  immersion  before  the  name  of  each 
Person.'  .  .  .  Our  conclusion  is,  that  the  commission  ought  to 
be  expounded  in  its  literal  and  unrestricted  sense — disciple  as 
many  as  we  can  by  baptizing  and  teaching  them,  admitting  no 
exceptions.  '  The  extent  of  our  ability  is  the  only  limit  of  our 
obedience.' " 

Bloomfielp,  Conim.  Matt.  28  :  19:  "  Madrjzeuffaze,  here,  signifies 
to  make  a  disciple  of.  T|ie  sense  is,  make  disciples  of  persons 
of  all  nations.  It  is  admitted  by  all  (except  Socinians  and 
Quakers)  that  baptism,  as  a  token  of  making  any  one  a  disciple, 
ought  to  be  administered  to  all  introduced  into  the  number  of 
Christ's  disciples.  To'he  baptized  in  the  name  of  any  one,  is,  by 
baptism,  to  be  bound  to  observe  the  religious  observances  insti- 
tuted by  him.  It  has  been  debated  whether  the  words  of  the 
commission  contain  a  formula  of  baptism  prescribed  by  Christ, 
or  whether  they  indicate  the  jnu-pose  and  end  of  baptism.  Kui- 
noel  states  the  arguments  for  the  former  view,  thus:  1.  In  Acts 
19 :  5,  compared  with  v.  2,  and  Tit.  3 :  4,  the  subject  is  baptism, 
and  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  mentioned ;  2.  Justin 
Martyr  speaks  of  baptism  'upon  (Itt'i)  the  name  of  the  Father  of 
all,  and  Lord  God,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;'  3.  Baptism  '  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,'  or 
'  in,  upon  tlie  name  of  Jesus  Christ,'  i.  <;.,  'into  Jesus  Christ,'  is 
a  shorter  formula,  with  the  same  sense  as  that  in  Matt.  28: 19.' 
The  arguments  for  the  latter  view  (which  he  adoi:)ts)  are  these: 
'  1.  Christ  did  not  command  them  to  go  and  teach  all  nations, 
saying,  I  baptize  thee,  etc.,  but  only  baptizing  them,  etc. ;  2.  No 


OTHER    VIEWS.  421 

passage  is  found  in  the  Acts,  or  in  the  Epistles  exhibiting  a 
formula  prescribed  by  Christ;  3.  If  Christ  had  prescribed  a 
formula  of  baptism  the  Apostles  would  not  have  receded  from  it 
and  used  a  shorter  one.' 

"  To  VfUAT  forviula  the  Apostles  joined  baptism  may  not  clearly 
appear  ;  but  that  at  a  very  early  period  the  present  was  introduced 
is  certain,  from  the  passage  cited  from  Justin." 

Lange,  Comm.  Matt.  28:19:  '•'' MaOrjzebaars:  make  disciples  of. 
The  translation,  teach,  is  incorrect.  So,  also,  is  the  Baptist  exe- 
gesis :  In  every  case,  first  complete  instruction,  then  baptism. 
To  make  disciples  of,  involves,  in  general,  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel,  but  pre-eminently  the  moment  when  the  non-Christian  has 
become  through  repentance  and  faith,  a  catechumen.  This  willing- 
ness in  the  case  of  children  of  Christian  parents  is  presupposed 
and  implied  in  the  willingness  of  the  parents.  The  Holy  Scrip- 
ture everywhere  place  the  spiritual  unity  of  the  household  in  the 
believing  father,  or  believing  mother,  representing  this  as  the 
normal  relation. 

'"'•All  nations.  Acts  10  :  is  the  Spirit's  exegesis  of  the  already 
perfect  commission.  Baptizing  them..  But  txadrizevsiv  is  not  com- 
pleted in  baptism.  There  are  two  acts,  the  antecedent  baptism, 
the  subsequent  instruction.  In  (or  rather  with  reference  to,  or 
into)  the  name  of.  That  is  in  the  might  of,  and  for,  the  name,  as 
the  badge  and  the  symbol  of  the  new  church.  E\<;  r6.  '  Note,' 
says  Meyer,  '  that  the  liturgical  formula.  In  nomine,  In  the  name, 
rests  entirely  upon  the  incorrect  translation  of  the  Vulgate,'  Yet 
not  so  entirely,  because  the  expression  h  toj  dvoiian,  is  found  in 
Acts  10:  48.  De  Wette  and  Meyer  explain  ej'c  to,  with  reference 
to  the  name.  But  dq  t6  in  other  passages  means  either  the  ele- 
ment into  which  one  is  baptized  (Mark  1 :  9,  elq  rbv  'lopSdvrjv-  Rom. 
6  :  3,  £;'?  rov  Odvarov)  ;  or  the  object,  elq  /lerdvoiav.  Matt.  3:11;  Acts 
2  :  38,  sic  d<p£<nv ;  or  the  authority  of  the  community,  under  which 
and  for  which  one  is  baptized  (sjV  rdv  Mwuar^v,  1  Cor.  10:  2).  The 
last  meaning  is  probably  the  pi'orainent  one  in  this  passage ;  a 
baptism  under  the  authority  of,  and  unto  the  authorit}^  of  the 
triune  God,  as  opposed  to  the  baptism  in  and  for  the  authority  of 
Moses.  But,  as  the  context  shows,  we  have  expressed  likewise 
the  idea  of  being  plunged  into  the  name  of  the  Three-One  God, 
as  the  element,  and  the  dedication  of  the  baptized  unto  this 
name.  The  expression  iim  rw  dvo/iazc,  Acts  2  :  38,  brings  out  most 
fully  the  idea  of  authority,  in  virtue  of  which,'  or  the  foundation 


422  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

upon  which,  baptism  is  administered.  '  The  name '  refers  to  each 
of  the  Persons  of  the  Godhead,  and  brings  out  in  the  one  name 
the  equality  as  well  as  the  personality,  of  the  three  Divine  Names 
in  one  name, 

"We  must  dissent  from  Meyer  when  he  says  that  the  passage  is 
'  improperly  termed  the  baptismal  formnla.  No  trace  being  found 
of  the  employment  of  these  words  by  the  Apostolic  church.  It 
was  only  at  a  later  period  that  the  baptismal  formula  was  drawn 
up  according  to  these  words.'  But  it  is  this  development  which 
conducts  us  back  to  the  germ,  which  we  find  here  deposited  in 
the  New  Testament." 

Prof.  Wilson,  Baptism,  307,  London:  "Baptism  into  Moses 
clearly  implied  the  acknowledgment  of  his  claims  as  a  leader 
and  lawgiver,  and  of  the  economy  called  by  his  name;  baptism 
into  Christ  implies  the  acknowledgment  of  our  Lord  in  his  per- 
sonal and  mediatorial  character,  and  of  the  faith  which  he 
founded ;  and  the  baptism  of  the  Commission  implies  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Sou,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  .  .  .  The  meaning  of  this  baptism  demands  still  closer 
ipquiry.  This  formula  means  more  than  the  most  ingenious  in- 
terpreter of  symbols  can  discover  in  the  outward  rite.  Baptism 
into  Christ's  death,  according  to  Dr.  Carson,  comprehends  bap- 
tism into  the  faith  of  his  death  ;  and  we  msiy  safel}'  maintain  that 
the  Commission  enjoins  baptism  into  the  faith  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost.  In  these  connections  our  Baptist  friends  do 
not  obtrude  their  dip  or  immerse.  Dipping  into  Moses,  dipping 
into  the  Father,  dipping  into  Jesus  Christ,  are  phrases  which 
they  eschew.  This  substitution  of  baptism  for  dipping  is  a  turn- 
ing away  from  the  boasted  fruits  of  their  philology. 

" '  Baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father,'  etc.,  viewed  in  its 
isolated  statement  seems  to  be  of  a  purely  spiritual  character. 
Water  is  not  mentioned  ;  it  is  implied.  Had  it  been  mentioned, 
so  long  as  Christian  ministers  are  required  to  '  baptize  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,'  we  should  contend  that  the  ordinance  pos- 
sesses an  essential  character  to  which  the  use  of  water  is  merely 
subservient.  The  latest  leader  of  the  Immersionists  (Mr.  Stovel 
of  London)  assures  us,  that  '•  i^anziUiv  ^k  means  to  initiate,''  and 
consequently  neither  dipping,  nor  affusion,  nor  sprinkling.  When 
Paul  asked  certain  disciples,  '  Into  what  were  ye  baptized  ?'  they 
said  not,  into  Jordan,  nor  into  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  but  'into 
John's  baptism.'   Had  these  disciples  understood  Paul  to  inquire, 


OTHER    VIEWS.  423 

Into  what  were  you  plunged  or  dipped  ?  and  their  views  had  been 
those  of  the  modern  Immersionists,  the  Apostle  would  have  re- 
ceived a  very  different  answer. 

"  Baptist  writers  labor  to  dispose  of  the  structure  of  the  Com- 
mission as  a  common  and  natural  ellipsis.  But  this  does  not  meet 
the  difficulty.  We  read  in  Acts  16:15,  '  Lydia  was  baptized,' 
and  as  no  regimen  is  expressed  after  the  verb,  all  parties  supply 
in  water  or  with  water.  The  structure  of  the  Commission  is  dif- 
ferent ;  the  participle  baptizing  is  followed  by  ei"?  with  its  appro- 
priate case,  thus  presenting  a  form  of  expression  complete  both 
in  sentiment  and  syntax.  True,  the  preposition  and  its  case  do 
not  I'efer  to  water ;  but  this  forms  the  very  peculiarity  of  which 
the  common  ellipsis  cannot  give  a  satisfactory  account.  The 
Commission  enjoins  baptism  not  into  water,  but  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  So)i,  and  Holy  Spirit.  How  shall  we  deal  with  this 
construction  ?  The  ordinarj^  ellipsis  is  uncalled  for,  or  inadmis- 
sible. If  we  inserted  dq  udwp  after  the  participle  we  should  have, 
'  Baptizing  them  into  water,  into  the  name,'  etc.,  a  collocation 
of  words,  we  venture  to  say,  without  parallel  either  in  sacred  or 
profane  literature.  ...  If  the  verb  denotes  '  dip,  and  nothing 
but  dip,'  the  Commission  requires  us  to  dip  a  disciple  '  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,'  etc.  The  force  of  the  verb  is  expended  on 
a  spiritual  act,  and  the  construction  does  not  touch  the  use  of 
water  in  baptism.  The  Baptist  may,  on  his  own  principles,  dij) 
'into  the  name  of  the  Father,'  but  he  cannot  dip  into  water, 
without  inserting  a  clause  to  that  effect  in  defiance  of  all  prece- 
dent. Baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  forms  the  substance  of  the  ordinance. 

"May  it  not  be  objected  that  our  interpretation  would  pave  the 
way  for  setting  aside  the  use  of  water  altogether,  in  baptism  ? 
We  answer,  no :  for  while  the  spiritual  initiation  constitutes,  in 
our  view,  the  essence  of  the  ordinance,  the  examples  of  baptism 
in  Scripture  exhibit  the  use  of  water  as  a  sanctioned  and  veritable 
fact. 

"The  real  ellipsis  of  the  Commission  shown  by  1  Cor.  10:  2, 
corroborates  our  view.  The  fathers  of  the  Jewish  church  '  were  all 
baptized  (e^?)  into  Moses  (Iv)  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.'  The 
Israelites  were  not  di2')p)ed  into  the  cloud,  and  into  the  sea.  If  in 
administering  baptism  into  Moses,  sea  and  cloud  could  be  used 
without  immersion,  may  not  water  be  used  without  immersion  in 
administering  baptism  into  Christ  ?  " 


424  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Brief  Examination  of  these  Views. 

Carson:  "Scholars  of  Christ  who  have  believed  in  him."  All 
"  scholars  believing  in  Christ,"  must  (normally)  be  ritually  bap- 
tized into  Christ,  as  they  have  really  been  so  baptized  by  "  be- 
lieving in  him."  "  When  they  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  bap- 
tized more  disciples  than  John"  (John  4:1).  "It  is  into  the 
faith  and  subjection  they  are  baptized^ 

This  is  not  interpretation,  but  naked  substitution. 

Gale :  "  ek  to  d^oixa  =  instructed  in  and  brought  over  to  the 
faith  of  Christ."  Where  is  the  proof  that  instruction  and  belief 
in  Christ  is  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father  ?  ,  .  . 

Morell:  "Baptizing  is  not  the  means  of  discipling."  Very 
true ;  but  Alexander  Campbell  says  it  is,  as  much  as  repentance 
and  faith. 

Ingham:  '•'•  Bar.riXio  does  not  mean  cZip,  but  immerse,  covering 
in  any  way.  This  act  is  performed  on  the  believer  into  the  name 
of  the  Father.''''  Ingham  as  a  Baptist,  is  good  authority  against 
Carson  the  Baptist,  the  one  affirming,  baptize  does  not  mean  dip ; 
the  other  affirming,  "  It  means  nothing  but  dip."  Ingham  is  bad 
authority  against  the  truth.,  when  he  omits  unlimited  continuance, 
as  an  essential  element  in  immerse,  which  is  thus  disqualified 
from  officiating  in  the  momentary  immersion  of  a  dipping.  Who 
can  convert  into  English  such  language  as,  "  this  act  is  performed 
on  the  believer,  into  the  name  of  the  Father?"  .  .  . 

Jeivett:  "Into  subjection  and  obedience."  This  is  blotting 
out  "  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  and  substituting  for  it  "  subjection  and  obedience."  "  The 
immersion  of  the  subject  in  ivater  is  essential  to  the  ordinance." 
Prof.  Milo  P.  Jewett  speaks  very  positively  on  this  point.  It  is 
not  in  the  Commission.  Did  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  forget  to  state 
this  "essential"  truth?     Did  Matthew  forget  to  record  it? 

Wayland:  "Immerse  the  body  in  water,  baptizing  the  can- 
didate '  into  the  name  of  the  Father.'  "  .  .  .  "  Immerse  the  body 
in  water  "  is  Dr.  Wayland's  commission,  not  the  Commission  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Booth:  "  The  form  of  expression  is  baptizing  iri  or  into  some- 
thing, as  'in  Jordan,'  'in  ^Enon,'  'in  the  Holy  Spirit;'  'into 
Jordan,'  'into  Paul,'  'into  my  own  name,'  'into  what,'  'into 
John's  baptism,'  'into  Moses,'  'into  Christ,'  'into  his  death,' 
'  into  the  name  of  the  Father.'  .  .  .  The  phrases  /JaTrrt'Cw  ^i*  and  /iar- 


BRIEF    EXAMINATION    OF    THESE    VIEWS.  425 

Tt'Cw  £^c,  are  never  used,  in  the  New  Testament  or  out  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  equivalent  expressions.  The  former  phrase  is 
never  used,  by  inspired  or  uninspired  writers,  to  express  the  pas- 
sage of  an  object  from  without  an  element  to  a  position  within  an 
element.  Thus,  l^anzH^ajv  h  zf^  ^p^!J-(f^  (Mark  1  :  4),  iv  Br)0aj3apa  (John 
1 :  28),  ^v  'Aivw',  (John  3  :  23),  h' Inpdw^rj  (Matt.  3  :  6),  the  preposi- 
tion h  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  meaning  of  ^ar^r-Xwv ; 
if  this  word  meant  tvhiUling  sticks^  it  would  be  all  the  same  to  the 
preposition,  which  simply  points  out  the  Wilderness,  Bethabara, 
^non,  Jordan,  as  the  jDlaces  where  the  baptizing  took  place.  In 
the  phrases,  "  He  shall  baptize  you,  ^i'  flveu/jLari  ^Ayiip''^  (Matt.  3:11); 
"  I  baptize  you,  ^v  S^ari"  (Matt.  3  :  11)  ;  "  He  commanded  them 
to  be  baptized,  ^i^  Tip  dv6[iart  ruu  Kupcou  "  (Acts  10  :  48)  ;  the  prepo- 
sition indicates  the  condition  of  the  baptizer,  and  of  the  speaker, 
as  invested  (in  the  first  case)  with  the  divine  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  therefore  capable  of  baptizing  =  thoroughly  changing 
the  spiritual  condition  of  the  soul ;  in  the  second  case,  invested 
with  the  symbol  power  of  water,  and  therefore  capable  of  baptiz- 
ing symbolly  only  =  showing  this  spiritually  purified  condition 
of  the  soul  by  the  application  of  water  to  the  body ;  in  the  last 
case,  invested  with  that  divine  authority  which  belongs  to  "  the 
name  of  the  Lord,"  and  therefore  empowered  to  give  authoritative 
command  for  the  ritual  baptism  of  the  Gentiles.  Again,  the 
preposition  has   nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  meaning  of 

The  phrase,  "Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee  and  was 
baptized  by  John"  (having  come)  "d?  7o^5flt>/jji',"  is  a  case  in  which 
££'?  is  as  wholly  disconnected  from  the  meaning  of /3a7rT:t«>,  as  is  iv 
in  the  previous  phrases,  and  indicates  the  place  to  which  Jesus 
came  after  departing  from  Nazareth.  The  proof  of  this  is  clear : 
"He  came  down  to  meet  me  e;'?  rdv  Uopddv-qv''''  (3  Kings  2:8); 
"The  Lord  hath  sent  me  slq  rdv  Uopddvrjv''''  (2  Kings  2:6);  "And 
they  came  eiq  ^lopda)^riv^''^  in  none  of  these  cases  does  the  preposi- 
tion express  the  passing  into  the  Jordan,  but  merely  declares  the 
place  toward  which  the  movement  tended  and  at  which  it  termin- 
ated. It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  this  preposition  takes  its 
form  from  and  is  expository  of  /5a-nt<w ;  it  originates  in  and  is 
expository  of  the  movement  which  starts  from  Nazareth  and  ter- 
minates at  the  Jordan.  This  interpretation  receives  additional 
confirmation  by  the  use  of  another  preposition  by  Matthew  in 
relating  the  same  fact,  which  preposition  can  have  no  possible 


426  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

relation  to  the  meaning  of  fiaTzrc^^uj.  "  Then  cometh  Jesus  from 
Galilee  {im  tvv  lupSdvrjv)  iipon  the  Jordan,  to  be  baptized  by  John." 
There  is  no  other  statement  in  the  New  Testament  of  any  move- 
ment from  one  place  to  another  in  connection  with  baptism,  and 
there  is  no  otlier  statement  in  the  New  Testament  where  ei?  stands 
in  connection  with  [iar.TiZo)  in  regimen  with  what  might  be  supposed 
to  represent  a  physical  element.  The  evidence  that  it  does  not 
here  depend  on  fiar.Ti^io^  and  connect  it  with  a  physical  element, 
but  does  depend  on  rjlOev^  and'connects  it  with  Jordan  as  a  locality- 
and  the  place  of  arrival,  is  of  the  clearest  and  most  conclusive 
character.  In  all  the  other  cases  mentioned  by  Booth,  "2?ito  {dq) 
what,"  "into  {sU)  John's  baptism,"  ''Hnlo  (ej?)  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus"  (Acts  19:3,5);  '■'■into  (ek)  Jesus  Christ,"  "into  {sk) 
his  death"  (Rom.6:3,  4);  "into  {eU)  Christ"  (Gal.3:27);  'Hnto 
(£k)  Moses"  (1  Cor.  10:2);  ''into  {dq)  the  name  of  Paul,"  ''into 
(ei?)  my  own  name"  (I  Cor.  1:13,  15);  "into  (sk)  one  body" 
(1  Cor.  12: 13);  "into  (sk)  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Matt.  28:  19);  every  phrase  pre- 
sents an  organic  unit}',  and  the  verb  is  organically  and  indissolu- 
bl}'^  related  through  the  preposition  to  its  regimen,  which  in  every 
case  is  of  an  ideal  and  not  of  a  physical  character.  There  is  no 
sucli  tiling  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  "  baptism  into  "  a  physical 
element ;  nor  is  there  any  such  thing  as  a  "  baptism  i«,"  expres- 
sive of  an  object  r-esting  within  any  physical  element. 

Stovel:  "'Immersed  in  cloud  and  sea  while  entering  into 
Moses ;'  '  baptized  in  water  when  tliey  entered  into  Christ ;' 
baptized  in  water  those  who  enter  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
or  resign  themselves  to  the  authority  (=  into  the  name)."  Mr. 
Stovel  could  not  fail  to  see  that  his  interpretation  is  the  merest 
caricature  of  the  language  of  Scripture,  if  any  one  should  substi- 
tute for  tlie  baptism  of  Scripture  Mr.  Stovel's  "  baptism  in  pollu- 
tion and  error"  and,  giving  him  measure  for  measure,  should  in- 
terpret it  as  "an  immersion  in  water,  entering  into  pollution  and 
error."  (!) 

Professor  Pepper:  "Baptism  was  not  instituted  by  the  Com- 
mission. The  time  of  its  institution  was  John's  ministry."  The 
baptism  of  all  who  are  made  Christ's  disciples  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  tiie  Holy  Ghost,  was  instituted 
by,  and  will  forever  be  the  transcendent  glory  of,  the  Commission. 
A  ritual  baptism  by  water  was  not  instituted  in  the  Commission, 
nor  at  an}'  other  time  by  formal  and  public  announcement.     There 


BRIEF    EXAMINATION    OF    THESE    VIEWS.  427 

is  no  such  record  of  John's  authority  to  baptize.  The  time,  and 
place,  and  manner  of  his  investiture  with  such  authority  is  not 
on  record.  He  had  such  authority,  for  he  says  so  (John  1  :  33)  ; 
and  his  declaration  and  action  under  it  is  sustained  by  the  ques- 
tion of  our  Lord  (Matt.  21 :  23)  "  The  baptism  of  John,  whence 
was  it?  from  heaven  or  of  men?"  But  the  Commission  of  John 
to  baptize  never  gave  any  authority  to  the  Apostles  to  baptize. 
John's  Commission  was  exclusively  personal  and  limited  (without 
the  power  of  self-perpetuation)  to  his  own  ministr3\  And  unless 
a  kindred  commission  had  been  enacted  and  committed  to  other 
hands  ritual  baptism  would,  of  necessity,  have  perished  with  John. 
Such  re-enactment  and  extension  was  made  by  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  as  is  shown  by  John  3:22;  4:1,  2.  And  this  renewal 
and  perpetuation  of  ritual  baptism  by  divine  authority  was  as 
private  and  informal  and  without  record  as  to  time,  place,  and 
language,  as  was  the  original  institution  under  John.  Our  knowl- 
edge of  such  institution  is  derived  solel}'  from  the  historical  ref- 
erence to  its  administration.  That  this  renewed  institution  of  the 
rite  was  to  extend  into  and  be  incorporated  with  Christianity  is 
known  only  by  the  facts  of  a  perpetuated  administration,  and  the 
command  by  Peter,  made  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  that 
ritual  baptism  should  be  extended  to  the  Gentiles.  Such  facts 
bear  with  condemning  severity  upon  the  disposition  to  magnify 
the  form  or  the  efficacy  of  a  rite,  the  institution  of  which  it  has 
pleased  God  to  leave  without  any  formal  verbal  record.  Dr.  Pep- 
per is  right  in  saying  ritual  baptism  was  not  instituted  by  the 
Commission  ;  but  not  right  in  tracing  Christian  ritual  baptism  to 
John  as  its  source. 

President  Brunner :  "Immersion  is  not  merely  immersion  ;  it 
is  immersion  'into  the  name  of  the  Father.'  .  .  .  Bare  immersion 
no  more  exhausts  the  idea  of  immersion  'into  Christ'  than"  .  .  . 
Any  one  who  can  so  write,  and  j'et  say.  Christian  baptism  is  a 
dipping  into  water,  must  (if  not  technically,  yet  pro  hac  vice)  be 
a  deranged  man. 

Alexander  Campbell:  "Disciple,  convert  the  nations  baptizing 
them.  The  active  participle,  with  the  imperative  mood,  always 
expresses  the  agency  for  effecting  the  command."  Morell  (the 
friend  of  President  Campbell,  so  far  as  dipping  is  concerned) 
disproves  this  position  as  a  universal  doctrine.  And  Acts  22: 16, 
"  Baptize  th3'self,  and  wash  away  thy  sins  (^iru-/.aX£(7dixevo<;)  calling 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord^''  is  a  crushing,  ad  hominem^  argument 


428  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

against  the  doctrine.  "  Calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  is  a 
very  effective  means  for  "  washing  away  sins,"  but  a  very  ineffec- 
tive means  for  dipping  a  man  into  water.  "  Enlist  soldiers,  mak- 
ing them  patriots,  training  them  to  observe  every  commanded 
duty,"  is  a  parallel  expression,  and  disproof  of  the  doctrine. 

Judson:  "Immersion  'into  the  name  of  the  Father'  ...  is  the 
only  Christian  baptism."  Would  that  Dr.  Judson  had  made  the 
rule  of  his  faith  and  practice  the  truth  Avhich  he  so  unreservedly 
utters,  then  would  he  never  have  adopted  and  announced  as  truth 
the  marvellous  contradiction — dipping  into  water  is  the  only 
Christian  baptism. 

Views  of  others^  not  Baptists. 

Pusey :  This  writer  must  be  acknowledged  to  be  fully  competent 
to  report  on  the  sentiments  of  the  Fathers.  He  reports  them  as 
holding  the  opinion  that  the  baptism  of  the  Commission  is  a  hand 
fide  baptism  "  into  the  Name,"  "  insertion  of  the  baptized  within 
the  Name,"  that  "  Name  into  which  a  man  runneth  and  is  safe." 
He  also  refers  to  "  the  embarrassment  of  those  who  say  that  bap- 
tism 'into  the  name'  is  a  mere  rite,  to  tell  what  baptism  'into  the 
name'  literally  means,  or  how  they  get  their  meaning  out  of  it." 
His  testimony  as  to  the  sentiment  of  the  Fathers  is  correct,  and 
his  reference  to  the  embarrassment  of  those  who  make  the  baptism 
of  the  Commission  a  ritual  service  has  a  sharp  point. 

Barclay :  "  It  may  stumble  to  say,  Baptism  in  water  has  no 
support  in  Matt.  28  :  19  ;  but  baptism  '  into  the  name  '  is  not  bap- 
tism into  water.  '  Name  '  is  virtue,  power,  and  is  baptism  into 
virtue  and  power.  'Baptizing  into  the  name  of  the  Father'  .  .  . 
is  not  a  formula  for  baptism  :  1.  Because  it  is  not  so  used  by  the 
Apostles;  2.  Because  they  use  another  formula."  Whatever  was 
Barclay's  error  as  to  ritual  baptism,  his  interpretation  of  this 
particular  passage  is  not  without  merit. 

Fairhairn :  "  Baptism  into  a  person,  e.  g.,  into  Christ,  means 
admitted  into  personal  fellowship."  This  is  a  just  exposition  in 
principle,  and  in  the  right  direction  as  to  truth.  But  the  farther 
statement :  "  It  is  baptism  into  the  faith  of  his  promises — into  the 
profession  and  hope  of  all  that  his  name  indicates,"  has  not  equal 
accuracy.  It  is  impossible  to  substitute  ^Hnto  the  faith  of  prom- 
ises," or  ^'' into  the  profession  and  hojye,"  of  anything,  for  a  bap- 
tism ''''into  Christ."     The  sentiment  turns  wholly  and  solely  on 


VIEWS    OF    OTHERS,   NOT    BAPTISTS.  429 

"  Christ,"  and  "  baptism  into  "  him,  and  not  into  faith,  or  pro- 
fession, or  hope.     Take  away  "  Christ,"  and  you  take  away  all. 

J.  A.  Alexander:  "Baptism  'into  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.' 
Jesus  =  Saviour;  Christ  =  Anointed;  =  Prophet,  Priest,  and 
King.  Therefore,  baptism  into  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  =  bap- 
tism into  union  and  subjection  to  him  in  these  characters."  There 
is  a  verbal  inaccuracy  in  the  repetition  of  '■'•baptism  into^^  (the 
name)  which  develops  "  union  and  subjection."  We  cannot  re- 
peat the  "  baptism  into  "  which  has  been  once  used,  by  saying 
"  baptism  into  union  and  subjection."  Baptism  into  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  =  "  union  with  and  subjection  to  all  that  his  name 
imports,"  is  a  good  interpretation,  and  the  literal  truth. 

President  Beecher :  "Purifying  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,"  ....  There  is  a  difficult}'  in  the  way  of  translating, 
here,  baptizing  by  "  purifying."  The  difficulty  is  not  that  baptize 
has  not  the  meaning,  to  purify ;  it  has,  and  that  abundantly ;  but 
tlie  difficulty  arises  out  of  the  construction.  The  meaning  to 
purify  arises  out  of  a  baptism  into  something  which  is  possessed 
of  a  purifying  quality,  e.  g.,  into  repentance,  into  remission  of  sins, 
into  Christ.  Any  one  baptized  into  repentance,  remission,  Christ 
(  ^=^  brought  under  the  full  influence  of)  is  necessarily  jnirified  ; 
but  in  reaching  this  result  the  form  of  the  phrase  is  exhausted 
and  perishes,  leaving  purification  as  its  residuum.  By  frequent 
and  long-continued  use  of  tlie  phrase,  the  full  form  may  be  dropped^ 
and  the  single  word  baptize  may  be  used  in  proper  relations,  as 
representative  of  the  full  phrase,  with  the  meaning  to  purify^ 
But  this  meaning  cannot  be  substituted  for  "  baptize  "  in  the 
original  or  in  any  similarly  constructed  phrase  ;  thus,  you  cannot 
say,  purify  into  repentance,  purify  into  remission  of  sins.  Saul's 
armor  is  not  suited  to  David.  The  construction  which  is  suited 
to  baptize  is  not  suited  to  "  purify."  To  dip  into  pjurple  effects  a 
dye,  and  gives  origin  to  dye  as  the  meaning  of  "  dip  into  purple  ;" 
but  you  cannot  substitute  dye  for  dip  in  such  construction  as 
originates  the  meaning,  and  say-,  "  dye  into  purple."  The  construc- 
tion must  be  changed  to  dye  with  purple,  and  so  we  must  say,  purify 
by  repentance,  by  the  remission  of  sins.  We  cannot,  therefore, 
substitute  an  acquired  meaning  in  a  construction  which  belongs 
to  a  primary  meaning.  The  New  Testament  introduces  fianzi'^uj 
to  us  in  entirely  new  relations,  but  in  precisely  the  same  construc- 
tion which  the  original  nature  of  the  word  requires,  and  we  must 
deduce  the  new  ideas  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  a  strict  adher- 


430  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

ence  to  the  construction  and  to  the  force  of  individual  terms,  and 
in  doing  this  every  difficulty  will  imniediatel}^  be  resolved.  It 
must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  it  is  not  the  word  j^anri^u)  which  is 
used  in  a  novel  sense  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  the  novelty  is 
in  its  phraseological  combinations.  These  combinations  are 
organic  and  cannot  be  resolved  into  and  be  interpreted  by  dis- 
junct words.  Their  interpretation  must  be  as  a  whole.  The 
combinations  are  not  to  be  found  in  Classical  use,  and  the  ideas 
embodied  in  the  phrases  are  limited  to  revealed  truth.  There  is 
no  such  phrase  in  Classic  literature  as  paTzzKrim  ;j.e-avota<;]  and  no 
such  conception  as  that  contained  in  fid-zi(jij.a  iisroyoiaq  el-  a(pz<nv 
aimpriMv ;  consequently  no  heathen  Greek  could  comprehend  the 
conception  in  these  phrases  without  instruction  in  the  Scripture 
ideas  of  repentance  and  remission  ;  but  when  such  knowledge  was 
secured  there  would  be  no  farther  difficulty ;  because  the  con- 
struction conforms  to  the  laws  of  grammar  and  logic  governing 
all  such  Greek  phrases. 

Prof.  Godwin,  London:  "  The  words  of  our  Lord  mean  :  Puri- 
fying tliem  for  the  Father."  .  .  .  Professor  Godwin  sees  that 
if  "purif}'  "  be  the  meaning  of  fianTi^tu,  then  there  is  a  necessity 
for  conforming  ei^  to  such  meaning.  "  Purify  /b?' "  is  a  proper 
combination,  but  not  purif}'  into;  but,  for  reasons  assigned, 
"purify"  cannot  be  substituted  in  this  construction,  and  the 
change  of  el<;  from  "into"  to  for,  is  untenable,  in  view  of  the 
meaning  of  i^ar.riUo,  and  the  construction  based  on  that  meaning 
throughout  Classic  and  inspired  writings.  Prof.  Godwin  agrees 
with  Professor  Pepper,  of  Crozer  Baptist  Theolog.  Sem.,  in  say- 
ing: "The  Commission  does  not  institute  YxiuiA  baptism."  He 
also  says:  "It  does  not  announce  a  formula  for  ritual  baptism." 

Calmn  :  "  Matt.  28  :  19  is  not  the  institution  of  ritual  baptism, 
which  dates  from  Christ's  ministry.  Baptism  is  an  appendage 
subordinate  to  the  function  of  teaching.  Ritual  baptism  is  a 
shadow  of  the  remission  of  sins  through  Christ,  which  remission 
is  not  effected  by  the  outward  symbol,  but  by  the  Holy  8piri,t." 
Calvin  is  right  in  dating  Christian  ritual  baptism  from  the  min- 
istry and  authority  of  Christ  and  not  from  tliat  of  John,  even  if 
they  were  entirel}^  identical,  which  they  are  not.  Tlie  baptism 
of  John  is  Christian  baptism  asfdr  as  it  goes  ;  but  it  is  Cliristian 
baptism  undeveloped  in  the  blood-shedding  of  an  atoning  Re- 
deemer, in  wliich  shedding  of  blood  "  for  the  remission  of  sins," 
ritual  baptism  has  its  exclusive  ground. 


VIEWS    OF    OTHERS,   NOT    BAPTISTS.  431 

Bengel :  "  MaOrjTsueiv  includes  baptism  and  teaching.  The 
Gentiles  as  being  wholly  aliens  from  God  were  to  be  baptized 
into  the  name  of  the  Father."  .  .  .  Both  these  sentiments  are 
of  the  first  importance  in  the  interpretation  of  this  Commission : 
1.  The  discipleship  of  Christ  includes  ritual  baptism:  2.  Alien- 
ation of  Gentile  idolaters  from  the  living  and  true  God  is  to  be 
removed  by  baptism  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  the  Triune,  and  only  true  God. 
Of  course  such  baptism  must  be  real,  not  ritual. 

Olshausen:  "  Baptism  was  not  now  instituted.  Baptism  into 
the  name  is  to  be  understood  by  baptism  into  Paul,  baptism  into 
Moses.  '£'7ri  TO  ov(irj.a^  iv  T(p  wo/iari^  equivalents  of  el^  to  dvo;j.a.^' 
Olshausen  agrees  with  Calvin,  Godwin,  Pepper,  and  others,  that 
the  Commission  is  not  the  institution  of  ritual  baptism.  He 
agrees  with  Bengel  in  including  baptism  and  teaching  in  disciple- 
ship, but  seems  to  base  the  sentiment  on  this  passage,  while  Bengel 
grounds  it  more  profoundly  in  John  4  :  1.  He  errs  in  making  in\ 
TO  ovofjiu,  i-v  Tw  ovo/j.uTt,  the  equivalents  or  indeed  as  parallel  (so  far  as 
baptism  is  concerned)  with  ei"?  to  ovo/ia. 

Stier :  "  ^Evzui  ovoimTi  and  dq  to  oi/o/j'-a  are  not  equivalents.  Bap- 
tized into  the  Three-One  has  the  same  depth  of  meaning  as  dq 
0e6v^  £<c  XpttTTov^  h  8euJ.^^  Such  views  necessitate  a  real  and  not  a 
ritual  baptism  "into  the  Name."  .  .  . 

Lange  :  "In  the  name  =  in  the  might  and  for  the  name,  as 
badge  and  symbol.  Ei-:  to,  not  with  reference  to  (De  Wette, 
Meyer),  because  elsewhere  it  means  either  the  element  into  which 
one  is  baptized,  as  ei?  'lopdd'/rj'^,  etc  OdyaTo]^-,  or  the  object,  elq  iitTd- 
voiav-  or  the  authorit}^  under  which  one  is  baptized."  In  every 
instance  in  the  New  Testament  where  fianTi^u)  elq  occurs,  and  the 
preposition  is  expository  of  the  verb  and  points  to  the  comple- 
ment of  its  idea,  there  is  but  one  meaning  belonging  to  it.  In 
the  case  cited,  dq  lopddvrf^  (Mark  1  :  9),  the  preposition  is  not  de- 
pendent on  [ianTiXw,  nor  is  it  expository  of  it.  Its  dependence  is 
on  rjlOe^^  and  is  expository  of  the  direction  and  termination  of  the 
movement.  There  is  no  standing-place  for  an  attempt  to  prove 
that  a  baptism  "  into  the  Jordan  "  is  a  dipping  =  a  momentary 
putting  into  and  taking  out ;  and  a  putting  into  and  remaining 
within  without  limitation  of  time,  none  will  claim  ;  and  j'et  this 
element,  to  wit,  no  limitation  of  time,  is  essential  to  a  baptism, 
and  exists  in  every  baptism  of  the  New  Testament. 

Wilson  :  "Baptism  '  into  Moses'  =  the  acknowledgment  of  his 


432  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

claims  as  leader  and  lawgiver.  Baptism  'into  Christ'  =^  the 
acknowledgment  of  him  as  Lord  in  his  personal  and  mediatorial 
character.  Baptism  '  into  the  name  of  the  Father,'  .  .  .  .  =  the 
acknowledgment  of  '  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.'  "  This 
exposition  is  in  the  direction  of  the  trnth,  but  falls  greatly  short 
of  it ;  because  it  is  too  feeble  and  inadequate.  The  after-state- 
ment:  "The  Commission  enjoins  baptism  into  the  faith  of  the 
Father,"  ....  is  erroneous  ;  because  nothing  can  be  a  substitute 
for  the  divinely  enjoined  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Father.  .  .  . 
The  additional  statement:  "The  Commission  enjoins  baptism  not 
into  WATER,  but  '■ijito  the  Name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,'  "  is  entirely  correct.  And  if  our  duty  is  to  interpret  that 
Scripture  which  the  H0I3'  Ghost  has  given  to  us  and  not  to  make 
Scripture  to  suit  our  fancy  or  our  ignorance,  then,  our  business 
is  to  interpret  that  command  which  has  been  given  to  us  and  not 
to  substitute  some  other  for  it 

Interpretation. 

As  the  translation  of  this  passage  is  unsettled  so  also  is  the 
interpretation.  That  this  may  appear  I  will  present  some  of  the 
various  interpretations  which  have  been  given  by  those  whose 
piety  and  scholarship  give  them  a  right  to  be  heard  as  to  the 
pi'oper  interpretation  of  any  passage  of  Scripture.  My  object  in 
doing  this  is  not  to  present  views  which  harmonize  with  my  own, 
but  that  the  manifold  diversities  may  produce  the  profound  con- 
viction that  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage  is  yet  an  open  ques- 
tion, and  calls  for  renewed  investigation. 

Carson,  1G9,  173:  "It  is  well  known  that  fiaOrjreuecv  signifies 
to  disciple,  to  make  scholars.  To  disciple  all  nations,  is  to  bring 
them,  by  faith,  into  the  school  of  Ch7'ist,  in  which  they  are  to 
learn  his  will.  The  persons  whom  Matthew  calls  disciples,  Mark 
calls  believers.  It  is  into  the  faith  and  subjection  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  that  men  are  to  be  baptized." 

Little  or  no  objection  can  be  made  to  this  interpretation  on  its 
face.  It  covers  (vaguely)  the  general  truth  of  the  passage  and 
does  not  exclude  {by  any  necessit}^  the  new-born  babe. 

Stovel,  527:  "The  whole  meaning  is  expressed  thus:  Go, 
make  disciples,  baptizing  in  water,  those  wlio  enter  into  the  name, 
or  resign  themselves  to  the  authority  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit." 


VIEWS    OF    OTHERS,   NOT    BAPTISTS.  433 

Objection :  Such  interpretation  breaks  up  the  divinely  estab- 
lished relation  of  iSanrl^w,  and  substitutes  for  it  a  phrase  ('•  enter- 
ing into  the  name  of  the  Father,"  etc.)  unknown  to  the  Scriptures, 
thereby  announcing  a  condition  of  baptism  ("those  that  enter 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,"  .  .  .  )  both  unknown  to  the  Scrip- 
tures and  unsuited  to  the  Scripture  Rite. 

Ripley,  Christian  Baptism,  118:  .  .  .  "The  Lord  has  com- 
manded to  baptize  ;  but  he  has  given  no  command  about  the 
circumstances  of  time,  and  place,  etc.  .  .  .  The  action,  whatever 
it  be,  expressed  by  the  word  baptize,  is  not  a  circumstance.  .  .  . 
There  was  an  external  act  enjoined.  ...  It  is  on  Paul's  teaching, 
that  the  manner  of  the  baptismal  rite  is  regarded  as  significant. 
.  .  .  The  religious  immersion  of  a  believer  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  baptism,  whetlier 
administered  in  a  river,  or  a  lake,  or  .  .  .  The  Hebrew  word  to 
which  fiar.riZu)  corresponds,  clearly  means  to  dip,  to  immerse.  .  .  . 
A  particular  act  has;  no  particular  body  of  water  has  been  ap- 
pointed, in  which  that  act  has-  been  performed.  .  .  .  Baptists 
believe  only  the  immersion  of  a  professed  believer  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  etc.,  to  be  Christian  baptism." 

Objection:  The  command  of  the  Lord  is  not  a  command  sirapl^^ 
"to  baptize;"  but  it  is  a  command  specifically  to  baptize  ^^  into 
THE  NAME  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  a)id  of  the  Holy  Ghosts 
No  external  act  is  enjoined,  nor  is  there  any  possibility'  for  an  ex- 
ternal act  dipping,  immersing,  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  etc. 
Immersion  in  a  river,  is  no  more  baptism  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  than  death  is  life.  The  Hebrew 
word  /3C3  does  not  correspond  with  /SaTrn'^o*.  The  usage  of  these 
words  is  irreconcilably  diverse.  The  use  of  this  Greek  word  by 
the  Septuagint  in  translating  2  Kings  5:14,  no  more  proves  cor- 
respondence of  meaning,  than  the  word  "wash"  (used  in  the 
Syriac  translation)  proves  a  correspondence  with  this  Hebrew 
word  in  the  sense  to  dip,  or  than  ij.oXuvu)  stain  (also  used  by  the 
Septuagint  (Gen.  3t  :  31)  in  translating  this  same  Hebrew  word) 
means  to  dip.  The  whole  scope  of  the  usage  and  the  essential 
power  of  [■iar.ri'l.u}  shows,  that  the  meaning  to  dip  is  out  of  all 
question. 

JuDSON,  Sermon,  5 :  "  When  our  Lord  commissioned  his  dis- 
ciples to  proselyte  all  nations,  he  instituted  the  sacred  rite  of 
baptism.  The  primitive  word  {(idnrw),  from  which  the  word  de- 
noting baptism  is  derived,  signifies  immersion.    The  word  which 

28 


434  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

denotes  the  act  of  baptizing,  according  to  the  usage  of  Greek 
writers,  uniformly  signifies  or  implies  immersion.  The  Septua- 
gint  expresses  by  it  the  action  of  Naaraan  when  he  dipped  him- 
self seven  times  in  Jordan.  Josephus  uses  it  to  convey  the  idea 
of  immersion,  in  describing  the  death  of  one  who  was  drowned 
in  a  pool,  and  in  instances  too  numerous  to  be  detailed.-  The 
words  of  the  Commission  are,  '  Disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
into  (e}?)  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.' " 

Objection  :  Judson  differs  from  Pepper  and  Campbell  as  to  the 
institution  of  baptism.  One  or  the  other  is  in  error.  Where 
error  is  obvious  on  related  points  there  may  be  error  on  the  main 
point.  BoTTTU)  does  not  signify  '■^  immersion.^'  except  with  the  pro- 
found and  revolutionary  qualification  momentary  (immersion). 
Banri'^w  does  signify  mersion,  eliminating  definiteness  of  action  and 
momenlariness  of  continuance.  It  does  not  express  the  action  of 
Naaman  in  dipping  himself.  Its  use  by  Josephus  in  the  case  of 
droxiuring  is  proof  of  this.  Men  are  not  drowned  by  a  dipping. 
The  translation  of  the  Commission  by  Dr.  Judson — "  baptizing  in^o 
THE  Name" — disproves  his  interpretation. 

Dr.  Conant,  New  Version.,  notes :  "  This  Greek  word,  jmO-^zeo- 
aare  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  with  the  accusative  meaning 
to  make  one  a  disciple.  In  the  name  is  the  proper  English  expres- 
sion of  e;?  TO  ovofxa.  The  idea  of  reference  to  is  the  ground  meaning 
of  ek  in  such  cases ;  and  tliis,  with  all  it  includes,  is  embraced  by 
the  English  form  in  the  name.  Into  the  name  is  not  an  English 
phrase,  and,  though  the  literal  form  of  tlie  Greek,  does  not  give 
the  sense.  The  practice  was  adopted  at  an  early  period,  of 
immersing  at  the  utterance  of  each  name.  But  this  is  clearly 
contrary  to  the  terms  of  the  command." 

Objection  :  The  English  form  "  in  the  name"  (=by  the  author- 
ity of)  has  the  same  meaning  as  the  Greek  form  iv  tw  ovoimn^ 
which  differs  essentially  from  iia-TiZm  £«^  (to  ovo/m)  ;  which  is  the 
form  (both  in  the  Classics  and  in  the  New  Testament)  for  giv- 
ing the  utmost  precision  to  any  particular  baptism.  Beyond  the 
precision  of  statement  in  [ia-riX^iv  elq  OalanaaM.^  £;^  olvoi/,  e.'c 
yd).a^  e]'  utzvov,  e}^  7r(//>v£  t'«v,  £.'■-  /lerava iav^  £:?  u<p£fTiv,  ej? 
MwofTTjv^  el^  llaukov,  ei?  A pttrrov,  eiq  ru  ovojia  ran  llurpo^^  xal  rod 
Ttdu,  y.di  -du  Iheoparoi;  " Ayiou^  it  is  impossible  for  language  to  go. 
In  every  case  the  general  force  of  ,'ia-Ti!^ei>  elq  is  the  same,  namely, 
placing  the  object  of  the  verb  under  the  controlling  influence  of 


VIEWS    OF    OTHERS,    NOT    BAPTISTS.  435 

the  regimen  of  the  preposition.  The  dipping  of  the  head  (of  a 
person  standing  in  the  water)  into  the  water,  whetheV  once  or 
thrice,  was  not  the  baptism,  but  a  means  in  order  to  the  baptism, 
which  was  "  into  the  Name,"  etc.  This  is  shown,  among  other 
reasons,  by  the  Nestorian  ritual,  which  says,  "  and  dips  (tabal) 
him  in  water,  and  lays  his  hand  upon  his  head,  and  says,  such  a 
one  is  baptized  ('amad)  'in  tlie  name  of  the  Father,  etc.'"  Here 
tabal,  according  to  its  definite  meaning,  expresses  tJi.e  act  done  in 
the  dipping  into  water,  while  (/amad)  expresses  the  condition 
eftected  by  the  act,  namely,  ''  into "  (within  all  the  influence 
which  belongs  to)  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Hol}^  Ghost. 

Baptist  Manual,  Bapt.  Pub.  Soc:  "  We  believe  that  Christian 
baptism  is  the  immersion  in  water  of  a  believer,  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,"  Matt.  28:  19. 

Objection:  A  momentary  "immersion  in  water"  is  a  dipping 
for  which  there  is  no  command  in  Scripture.  An  "  immersion  in 
water,"  without  limit  of  time,  is  a  baptism,  and  as  Dr.  Judson 
says,  drowns  men.  -A  raersion  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  without  limitation  of  time,  is 
a  baptism  which  places  the  soul  under  the  controlling  influence 
of  the  Triune  God,  ivithout  withdrawal. 

An  "•  immersion  in  water  into  the  name  of  the  Father,"  etc.,  is 
unintelligible.  Are  there  two  immersions,  one  "  in  loader,"  and 
another  "  into  the  Name,''''  etc.  ?  If  so,  which  is  the  baptism  ?  Is 
the  "immersion  in  water"  causative  of  the  "immersion  into  the 
Deity  "?  or  what  is  the  relation  ?  If  this  immersion  in  water  has 
relation,  as  is  said,  to  the  Trinity,  how  has  it  relation,  as  this 
"article  of  faith"  farther  says,  to  "our  faith  \\\  tlie  crucified,  and 
buried,  and  risen  Saviour?"  There  is  a  vast  difference  between 
an  immersion  which  relates  to  the  Trinity,  and  one  that  relates 
to  the  crucifixion,  and  burial,  and  resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  crucifixion,  and  burial,  and  resurrection  of  the 
Trinity  (I)  is  no  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  If  Christian  baptism  is 
"  an  immersion  in  water  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,"  then.  Christian  baptism  cannot  be  an  immersion 
in  water  bearing  upon  the  cross,  the  tomb^  and  the  rolling  away 
of  its  stone.     The  two  things  are  incongruous  and  impossible. 

Alexander  Campbell,  Christian  Baptist,  fi.SO :  "  Have  you 
ever  adverted  to  the  import  of  the  participle  in  the  Commission, 
'  Disciple,  or  convert  the  nations,  immersing  them  ? '  I  need  not 
tell  you  that  this  is  the  exact  translation.     Let  me  ask  you  then, 


436  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

does  not  the  active  participle,  always,  when  connected  with  the 
imperative  mood,  express  the  manner  in  which  the  thing  com- 
manded is  to  be  performed?  Cleanse  the  floor,  washing  it ;  cleanse 
the  floor,  sweeping  it;  convert  the  nations,  baptizing  them;  are 
exactly  the  same  forms  of  speech.  No  person,  I  presume,  will 
controvert  this.  If  so,  then,  no  man  could  be  called  a  disciple  .  .  . 
until  he  was  immersed." 

Objection :  If  it  be  not  murder  in  the  first  degree  to  quote 
"  Convert  the  nations,  immersing  them,"  as  the  command  and 
means  taught  by  Matt.  28:19,  then,  there  never  was  murder 
committed  in  this  fallen  world.  The  doctrine  of  the  active  par- 
ticiple "  always  "  with  the  imperative  mood  indicating  the  means 
for  fulfilling  the  command,  has  been  disproved  by  the  Baptist 
scholar  Morell  of  Scotland,  as  well  as  by  Prof.  Wilson  of  Ireland. 
Many  heresies  have  been  laid  at  the  door  of  Campbellism,  but 
none,  perhaps,  greater  than  that  which  the  President  of  Bethany 
has  laid  there  himself  in  teaching,  that  "  the  nations  are  to  be 
converted  by  immersing  them."  The  nations,  once,  were  im- 
mersed, but  there  is  no  record  of  their  conversion  thereb}',  any 
more  than  by  the  preaching  of  Noah.  There  is,  however,  a  very 
distinct  account  of  their  being  drowned,  which  confirms  the  case 
of  Dr.  Judson's  immersion  drowning,  as  indeed  will  every  case 
of  bona  fide  immersion  in  water  of  a  human  being. 

Interpreters,  not  Baptist. 

Stuart,  43:  "  The  noun  wopu  is,  no  doubt,  expletive.  Baptized 
eI-Z  to  wofia  Tzarpoq,  etc.,  is  the  same  as  baptized  e:?  rm  Tzarspa,  etc. 
Accordingly  we  find  dvo;xa  omitted  in  Rom.  6  :  3,  1  Cor.  10:2,  Gal. 
3  :  27  ;  it  is  used  in  Acts  8:16,  19:5;  1  Cor.  1 :  13, 15.  The  sense 
of  the  whole  formula  is  more  difficult  to  be  understood.  Most 
commentators,  after  Vitringa  (Obs.  Sac;  iii,  22),  explain  sl<;  as 
meaning  into  the  acknowledgment  of;  with  an  implication  of  affi- 
ance, subjection,  discipleship,  etc.  But  the  formula  in  1  Cor. 
12:  13,  seems  not  to  accord  with  such  an  explanation.  Here  ek 
plainly  means  participation,  ^.  e.,  by  baptism  we  come  to  belong 
to  one  bod}-.  In  like  manner,  we  may  say,  by  baptism  we  come 
to  belong  (in  a  si)ecial  and  peculiar  sense,  no  doubt)  to  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  to  Moses,  1  Cor.  10:2;  to  Paul,  1  Cor. 
1:13.  In  this  wa}'  all  the  passages  ma}'  be  construed  alike,  and 
the  sense  in  all  will  be  good.     The  idea  is,  for  substance,  that  by 


INTERPRETERS,  NOT    BAPTISTS.  437 

baptism  we  become  consecrated  to  any  person  or  thing,  appro- 
priated (as  it  were)  to  any  person  or  thing,  so  as  to  belong  to 
him  or  it,  in  a  manner  peculiar  and  involving  a  special  relation 
and  consequent  special  duties  and  obligations." 

Remark:  This  view  of  a  noble  man  and  scholar  (at  whose  feet 
it  was  m}'  privilege  to  sit  as  a  pupil)  is,  I  think,  substantially 
true,  yet  lacking  in  precision  and  confidence  for  two  reasons :  1. 
The  ground  on  which  (in  ph^'sical  applications)  [JanriZo)  et?  must 
be  interpreted  was  not  clearly  in  view  ;  2.  The  idea  of  a  ritual 
baptism  entering  into  the  statement  confuses  and  precludes  a 
cleanly  cut  interpretation  of  the  simple  and  explicit  statement 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Halley,  414  :  "  But  admitting,  as  I  do,  that  jSaTtriUiv  construed 
with  ££?,  is,  to  immerse  into,  let  us  apply  this  remark  in  expound- 
ing the  Commission  of  our  Lord. 

"  If  to  baptize  is  to  immerse,  in  this  passage,  then,  according  to 
the  usual  construction  of  the  words,  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
is  the  thing  into  which  the  nations  are  to  be  immersed.  If  the 
words  be  taken  literally,  here  is,  certainly,  no  command  to  im- 
merse into  water. 

"  To  immerse  eic  to  ovo/ia,  into  the  name  of  the  person  whose  re- 
ligion is  professed,  is  the  religious  rite  of  making  proselytes,  as 
to  immerse  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  is  the  appropriate  act  of  the  Apostles  and  of 
ministers  of  the  Gospel.  The  construction  of  the  passage  brings 
the  immersion  of  the  passage,  so  far  as  it  exists,  not  into  the 
element  of  baptizing  into  water,  but  into  the  object  of  baptizing, 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holj' 
Ghost.  So,  Paul  inquires  of  the  disciples  of  Apollos,  ei^  ri  -jSan- 
rtffOrjTs;  into  what  were  ye  baptized  ?  And  the  answer  is  not,  into 
cold  water,  but,  into  John's  baptism.  Let  it  be  observed,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  we  have  not  the  phrase,  to  baptize  into  water,  to 
baptize  into  the  Hoi}'  Ghost ;  but  to  baptize  with  water,  and  to 
baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  these  being  construed  as  the  in- 
struments with  which  the  baptism  was  performed,  not  the  sub- 
stances into  which  the  persons  were  baptized." 

Remark :  This  interpretation  is  in  harmony  with  the  elegant 
and  accurate  scholarship  which  is  characteristic  of  President 
Halley,  The  onl}'  disturbing  element  in  it,  is  the  sujDposed  neces- 
sity for  including  and  harmonizing  the  language  with  a  ritual 
observance,  which  has  no  place  in  the  statement. 


438  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Godwin,  151-162 :  "There  is  nothing  in  this  Commission  to 
show  that  the  phrase  here  used,  is  a  form  of  words  for  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism.  The  great  object  of  baptism  and  not 
the  language  used  at  the  ol)servance  of  baptism  by  water,  is  de- 
noted by  the  terms.  The  one  incomprehensible  and  invisible  God, 
who  manifests  himself  in  the  person  of  his  Son  and  by  the  Spirit 
which  abides  in  believers,  is  the  object  of  this  Christian  baptism. 
The  words  of  our  Lord  mean  'purifying  them  for  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Si)irit.'  This  passage  is  not  quoted  as  enjoin- 
ing the  rite  of  baptism,  until  the  introduction  of  the  doctrine  of 
Baptismal  regeneration,  which  led  to  the  supposition  that  every 
ba[)tism  mentioned  in  Scripture  was  the  one  Baptism  with  water. 

"  The  expression  to  immerse  into  God  is  objected  to  because  the 
figure  is  unnatural  and  unscriptural.  It  will  hardl}'  be  supposed 
that  this  command  included  nothing  but  what  the  Apostles,  them- 
selves, were  able  to  effect.  By  their  own  power  they  could  not 
make  one  true  disciple  of  Christ,  any  more  than  they  could  heal 
the  sick,  cleanse  the  lepers,  expel  demons,  and  raise  the  dead. 
The  context,  the  occasion,  and  parallel  passages,  prove  that  the 
purification  of  all  nations  for  which  the  Apostles  received  this 
great  Commission,  was  not  a  ceremonial  purification  by  water,  but 
a  moral  purification  by  the  Gospel  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ." 

Remark:  Professor  Godwin  very  justly  eliminates,  largely  if 
not  wholly,  a  ritual  baptism  from  the  direct  command  of  this  pas- 
sage. Purification  is  in  the  baptism  ;  but  rather  as  a  prerequisite 
for  it  (obtained  through  discipleship  to  Christ)  than  as  a  conse- 
quence of  "baj)tism  into  the  name,"  etc.;  it  is  not  derivable  (as 
here  used)  from  the  word  ftaTzri'^w.  Baptism  into  the  Deity  (re- 
jecting all  ritualism  from  the  thought)  cannot  be  "  unnatural," 
seeing  that  it  is  so  abundantly  used,  as  in  the  phrases — baptism 
into  Moses,  baptism  into  Joshua,  baptism  into  Paul,  baptism  into 
Christ;  nor  can  it  be  "  unscriptui-al "  seeing  that,  in  Christ,  in  the 
Spirit,  in  God,  are  phrases  which  abound  in  Scripture,  and  ex- 
hiljit  the  condition  in  ivhich  the  soul  abides,  having  entered  into, 
or  having  been  baptized  into  Christ,  into  the  Spirit,  into  God. 

Beeciieu,  20G:  "The  Fathers  regard  the  commissioii  to  remit 
sins  in  Luke  and  John,  as  a  commission  to  baptize,  as  reall}'  as 
that  in  Matthew  and  Mark.  They  regarded  it  merel}'  as  another 
mode  of  expressing  the  same  idea.  In  short,  Christ  died  as  the 
Lan)b  of  God  to  take  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  the  great 
business  of  the  Apostles  was  to  publish  to  the  world,  the  great 


INTERPRETERS,   NOT    BAPTISTS.  439 

doctrine  of  the  remission  of  sins  through  his  death,  and  the 
terms  on  which  it  could  be  obtained,  and  to  establish  the  rite  by 
which  this  purgation  from  sin  might  be  shadowed  forth  and  com- 
memorated in  honor  of  the  Trinity,  and  especially  of  that  Spirit 
by  whom  this  atonement  was  made  effectual  to  purge  the  con- 
science from  dead  works,  to  serve  the  living  God." 

Remark:  President  Beecher  is  entirely  correct  in  saying,  the 
Fathers  used  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  as  the  equivalents  of 
the  phrases  to  remit  sins,  the  remission  of  sins.  This  usage  was 
derived,  by  abbreviation,  from  the  Scripture  phrases — "  baptized  ^ 
into  Christ,"  baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins,  which  phrases 
express  a  condition  of  purification,  and  hence  the  word  "  baptize," 
when  used  as  the  representative  of  such  phrases,  secures  to  itself 
the  meaning  of  the  entire  phrase.  But  when  the  entire  phrase  is 
used  the  single  word  "baptize"  cannot  have  such  meaning;  but 
it  must  be  (distributed  through  the  phrase,  and)  be  received  as 
expressing  the  resultant  change  of  condition  in  the  object  effected 
by  the  interaction  (upon  it)  of  "baptize"  and  "  Christ"  or  "the 
remission  of  sins."  This  condition  of  purification  is  the  result 
of  baptism  into  Christ,  the  atoning  Lamb  of  God,  and  not  of 
baptism  into  the  Trinity,  which  is  quite  another  matter.  When 
or  where,  in  Scripture,  is  a  crucified  Redeemer  and  the  Trinity 
made  equivalents  or  interchanged  ? 

Bloomfield,  Grit.  Comm. :  "The  Commission  embraces  three 
particulars — ixaOTjreueiv,  fiuTZTiXetv,  and  8idd<Tx£iv, — i.e.,  1.  To  disci- 
ple them,  or  to  convert  them  to  the  faith;  2.  To  initiate  them  into 
the  church  by  baptism ;  3.  To  instruct  them,  when  baptized,  in 
the  doctrines  and  duties  of  a  Christian  life.  We  are  baptized  in 
(or  unto)  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." 

Olshausen :  "The  two  participles  go  to  compose  the  p.uOrjriuscu.''^ 

Lightfoot :  "  MaO-^riuffure  primum  per  baptismum,  et  delude 
dcddff/.£re  auTod<;.'^ 

Twretin:  "It  cannot  be  said  that  Christ  (Matt.  28:  19)  insti- 
tuted the  baptism  of  doctrine  and  not  of  water,  because  he  ex- 
pressly distinguishes  doctrine  from  baptism,  saying,  Teach  and 
Baptize." 

Remark  :  The  baptism  enjoined  by  Christ  is  far  nobler  than 
that  of  a  "  ritual  initiation  into  the  church."  The  phraseology  of 
the  text,  and  that  of  Turretin  by  the  introduction  of  "  and " 
(Teach  and  Baptize),  is  essentially  diverse  as  to  the  thought  pre- 


440  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

sented ;  still  more,  if  he  means  to  represent  iJ-aOrirvxrarz  b}' "  Teach," 
SIS  appears  to  be  the  case. 

Wilson,  359-361 :  "The  import  of  the  expression  [ianrtUtv  rtva 
dr;  T£v«  or  dq  t:',  is  still  agitated  among  the  most  accomplished  in- 
terpreters of  Scripture.  A  thorough  discussion  of  the  entire 
question  would  be  desirable ;  but  we  can  merely  offer  a  few  hints, 
at  present,  on  the  aspect  of  it  with  which  we  are  immediately 
concerned.  Vitringa  in  his  Observ.  Sacra.,  Ill,  22,  understands 
ek  as  denoting  Hnio  the  acknowledgment  of;'  a  sense  which  is 
obviously  too  limited  to  meet  all  the  occurrences,  though  it  con- 
tinues to  command  prett}^  general  acceptance.  Kuinol,  on  our 
text  and  on  Matt.  3:11,  takes  ei?  to  be  expressive  of  the  design 
or  end  in  view  (Jivem,  consilium) :  that  is,  'Be  baptized  th^f  you 
may  receive  pardon.'  Dr.  Halley  does  not  like  this  exegesis, 
neither  do  I.  It  was  adopted  by  Fritsche  on  Matt. ;  but  in  his 
more  recent  work  on  Rom.  (6  :  3)  he  rejects  it  as  not  sufficiently 
comprehensive.  His  new  theory  assigns  to  the  formula  the 
general  notion  of  directing  the  thoughts  of  the  baptized  to  some 
person  or  object, — which  he  thus  applies  to  our  text — '  Ita  lavari, 
ut  (futura)  peccatorum  venia  tihi  monstretur.''  If  an  apostle  in 
any  instance  baptized  a  true  believer,  it  was  a  baptism  dq  acpsaiv 
dixaprtcbv^  not  as  Q.  future  blessing,  but  as  one  already  conferred. 

"  Krehl^  on  Romans, .  explains  the  formula  as  meaning,  '  To 
obtain  (durch  die  Taufe)  through,  or  by  means  of  baptism,  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,'  an  interpretation  for  which  he  deserves  the 
best  thanks  of  Dr.  Pusey.  Among  the  older  critics,  Piscator 
understands  the  words — '  in  testimonium  atque  confirmationem 
reraissionis  peccatorum.'  Poole  takes  the  same  view,  though  its 
basis  is  scarcely'  broad  enough.  Stuart  thinks  that  e]q  with  the 
idea  of  participation  will  suit  all  the  passages,  and  afford  in  all  a 
good  sense.  Ohhausen  represents  remission  of  sins  as  the  result 
of  baptism,  though  baptism  he  says,  '  necessarily  presupposes 
faith.'  We  find  no  such  form  as  '  Be  baptized  that  3'ou  ma}'  re- 
ceive pardon  ;'  and  ^anri^etv  dq  has  no  such  meaning.  Whether 
we  baptize  into  Christ's  death,  into  repentance,  into  the  remission 
of  sins,  etc.,  we  do  not  create,  we  only  recognize  the  relation  pre- 
sumed to  subsist  between  the  parties,  and  that  into  which  they 
are  bai)tized.  Baptism  /or  repentance, /or  the  remission  of  sins, 
so  far  as  we  know,  is  an  unauthorized  rendering." 

Remark:  These  views  of  Prof.  Wilson  give  interest  to  and 
show  the  necessit}'  for  a  rc-exaraination  of  this  profoundly  in- 


INTERPRETERS,   NOT    BAPTISTS.  441 

teresting  and  deeply  important  passage.  One  thing  seems  to  be 
eleai", —  There  is  no  fixed  2^'>'inciple  anywhere  revealed  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  phrase  ,3anriZsiv  eU.  Until  this  is  secured  all 
interpretations  must  be  fluctuating.  When  this  shall  have  been 
determined,  we  will  have  a  fixed  element  bj^  which  to  test  inter- 
pretations authoritatively,  and  not  before. 

Neander,  197  :  "  We  certainly  cannot  prove  that,  when  Christ 
commanded  his  disciples  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  He  intended  to  establish  a  particu- 
lar formula  of  baptism.  .  .  .  He  wished  to  show  the  dependence 
of  the  whole  life  on  the  one  God,  who  had  revealed  himself 
through  his  Son,  as  the  Father  of  fallen  man,  and  who  imparts 
his  Spirit  to  sanctify  man,  whom  his  Son  has  redeemed  ;  as  well 
as  to  point  to  the  true  worship  of  God,  as  He  had  revealed 
himself  through  his  Son,  in  a  heart  sanctified  by  the  Divine  life, 
which  is  shed  forth  from  him." 

Remark :  The  discrimination  suggested  by  Neander  between  the 
peculiar  work  of  the  Son  in  redemption,  and  the  Trinity,  as  the 
true  God  to  vjhom  worship  is  due,  is  of  the  first  importance  to  the 
right  interpretation  of  this  passage.  Certainly  there  is  the  most 
radical  differeiice  in  the  relations  of  men  to  Christ  as  a  Re- 
deemer, and  to  the  Triune  God  as  the  object  of  worship. 

ScHAAF,  History,  566  :  "  The  full  formula  of  baptism  as  pre- 
scribed by  Christ  (Matt.  28  :  19)  is  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  signif3'ing  the  sinking  of  the  subject 
into  the  revealed  being  of  the  Triune  God,  a  coming  into  living 
communion  with  him,  so  as  to  be  thenceforth  consecrated  to  him, 
to  live  to  him,  and  serve  him,  and  to  experience  his  blessed  re- 
deeming and  sanctifying  power.  In  practice,  however,  we  find 
the  Apostles  alwaj's  using  the  abbreviated  form,  '  into  the  name,' 
or  '  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,'  or  '  of  the  Lord  Jesus,'  or  simply 
'  into  Christ.'  Of  course  this  included  the  other,  binding  the  sub- 
ject to  I'eceive  the  whole  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  consequently 
what  he  had  taught  concerning  the  Father  and  the  Hol}^  Ghost." 

Remark:  Prof.  Schaaf  teaches,  1.  The  Apostles  never  used  as 
a  formula  in  ritual  baptism  the  words  of  this  passage  ;  2.  The 
words  [iaTTziZovTeq  slq  to  ovop.a  must  be  treated  as  an  organic  phrase 
presenting  to  'ivoim  as  the  ideal  element  into  which  the  subject, 
under  the  power  of  (ianri'^u),  "sinks,"  and  is  thus  introduced  into 
a  new  condition  z::::^  of  communion,  consecration,  life,  service,  re- 
demption, and  sanctification,  without  limitation  of  time ;   all  of 


442  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

which  is  the  right  opposite  of  a  dipping  (whether  into  water,  or 
into  TO  ovotj.a)^  and  is  that  which  this  baptism,  and  ever^^  other 
baptism  of  the  New  Testament,  imperatively  demands. 
*  Tills  interpretation  may  be  ehicidated,  but  it  can  liardly  be 
essentially  improved.  Of  course  ''sinks  "  is  not  to  be  understood 
as  the  ex[)ression  of  the  definite  meaning  of  iSaTzzi^w.  But  it  does 
(in  common  with  very  many  other  words)  express  one  form  of 
action  l)y  which  the  demand  of  this  verb  (for  inness  of  condition, 
without  limitation  of  time,  and  without  restriction  in  the  form  of 
the  act)  may  be  properly  met.  Dipping  is  not  one  of  the  forms 
of  action  which  may  meet  the  demanded  condition  of  the  verb, 
because  it  is  essentially  contradictory  to  one  of  the  vital  elements 
in  this  Greek  word,  namely,  without  limitation  of  time.  A  dipping 
being  sharply  limited  to  momentariness,  is  necessarily  excluded 
from  the  class  of  words  which  like  "  sink  "  (not  being  limited  in 
the  time  of  continuance)  can  effect  a  baptism.  While  the  soul 
can  "sink"  into  the  name  of  the  Deity  without  withdrawal,  and 
so  be  "  baptized "  into  the  Triune  God,  a  living  man  cannot 
"sink"  (without  withdrawal)  into  wafer',  and  so  be  "baptized," 
without  destruction  of  life  ;  and  therefore  it  is  that  there  is  no 
such  thing  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  baptism  in  or  into  water  ; 
but  a  real  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  "  into  repentance,"  "  into 
the  remission  of  sins,"  "  into  Christ,"  and  a  ritual  baptism  with 
or  by  water  symbolizing  the  condition  of  purity  induced  in  the 
soul  l)y  such  real  baptisms. 

If  the  dippjing  into  water,  practiced  by  the  friends  of  the  theory, 
and  called  baptisms,  were  regarded  as  a  valueless  accident  in  the 
use  of  the  water  (the  essential  thing  being  in  the  (piality  of  the 
element)  then,  while  a  very  unwise  way  of  using  the  water,  and 
wholly  without  Scripture  authority,  it  might  still  be  accepted  as 
a  possible  use  of  the  element ;  but  when  the  act  of  dipping  is 
made  the  baptism,  there  is  the  most  absolute  nullification  of  the 
command  (ia-zi^ovzsq  elq  ro  ovoim,  and  such  a  dipping  must,  in  so 
far  forth,  be  absolutely  rejected  as  not  being  any  baptism  at  all, 
much  less  Christian  baptism.  Alford  (John  3 :  6),  like  Schaaf, 
uses  "sink"  as  without  limitation  of  time,  and  thereby  securing 
inness  of  condition  resulting  in  the  penetrating,  [)ervading,  and 
controlling  influence  of  the  encompassing  element  over  the  sunk 
object,  comuuiiiic.ating  to  it  its  own  quality.  "  The  spirit  of  man 
is  in  the  natural  l)irth  dead,  sunk  in  tre^juisses  and  sins,  and  in  a 
state  of  wrath."     If  dip  be  substituted  for  "sink,"  the  sentiment 


PROPOSED    INTERPRETATION.  443 

is  reversed,  and  the  "  state  "  of  death  and  pollution  is  subverted. 
So,  to  substitute  dip  for  baptize  in  the  word  of  God  is  an  abso- 
lute reversal  and  subversion  of  its  teachings. 

Proposed  Interpi^etation. 

General  Structure.  The  ruling  element  in  the  passage  is  the 
command — MaOrjTeuffare  :  the  relation  of  ^aTzriX.(>vTtq  elq  TO  i'Mijia  to 
this  command  is  that  of  an  included  and  dependent  result :  the 
relation  of  5u5a<rzovT£?  to  the  command  is  that  of  means,  cover- 
ing both  the  immediate  command — "disciple  to  Christ,"  and  its 
included  and  dependent  result — baptism  "  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  relation  between  "baptizing  into  the  Name  of  the  Father," 
and  "  discipling  to  Christ,"  as  proposed  by  Alexander  Campbell, 
namely,  that  Of  cause  to  effect  (as  in  "  cleanse  the  room,  sweeping 
it,"  sweeping  being  the  cause  of  the  cleansing),  is  a  reversal  of 
the  truth  here  taught,  and  substitutes  the  effect  for  the  cause. 
All  who  are  made  disciples  to  Christ  by  being  "  taught  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  he  has  commanded,"  will,  thereby,  be  "  bap- 
tized into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;"  but  without  this  antecedent  discipleship  they  cannot  be 
so  baptized.  Gabriel,  and  Michael,  and  all  the  hoi}'  angels,  are 
baptized  into  the  name  of  the  only  living  and  Tri-Une  God ;  but 
such  baptism  is  not  sin-cleansing,  nor  does  it  make  them  disciples 
to  Christ.  Holy  angels  can  come  unto  the  Father  in  other  ways 
than  by  Christ ;  but  no  guilty  man  on  earth  can  come  unto  the 
Father  but  by  Christ — Redeemer,  Mediator,  and  Advocate,  with 
the  Father.  Every  sinner  must  hear  the  call,  "Be  ye  reconciled 
to  God  "  (=  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost)  through  Jesus  Christ, 
the  "  merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest  who  maketh  reconciliation 
for  the  sins  of  the  people."  This  order  can  never,  by  any  possi- 
bility, be  changed.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  "  sweeping  "  sin 
from  the  soul  by  a  baptism  (ritual  or  real)  into  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  and  so  "cleansing"  it  for  discipleship  to  Christ.  This 
is  a  scheme  of  redemption  of  which  the  Bible  knows  nothing. 
The  relations  of  the  several  parts  of  the  passage  must  continue  (in 
harmony  with  all  other  Scripture)  to  declare,  that  the  subjection 
and  reconciliation  of  sinners  with  the  living  God — Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  must  begin  and  end  with  Jesus  Christ,  "  For 
it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell ;  And 


444  CIIRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

having  made  jyeace  by  the  blood  of  his  cross,  hy  him  to  reconcile 
all  things  to  himself." 

Disciple. 

MaOrjTV)(raT£ :  The  command  is  to  make  disciples^  to  disciple. 
The  agreement  on  this  point,  so  far  as  translation  is  concerned, 
is  now  so  uniform,  that  nothing  need  be  said  upon  it.  There  are, 
however,  several  points,  not  unimportant,  embraced  in  this  disci- 
pleship,  which  claim  brief  attention.  Among  these  points  are, 
1.  To  whom  are  these  persons  to  be  discipled  ?  A  thoughtful 
answer  to  this  question  must  be — They  arc  to  be  made  disciples 
of  Christ.  The  New  Testament  speaks  of  disciples  of  Moses,  of 
the  Pharisees,  and  of  John  ;  but  to  refer  the  disciples  here  spoken 
of  to  any  of  these,  is  out  of  all  question.  The  only  other  disciples 
spoken  of  are  disciples  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  These  are  not  only 
designated  as  "disciples  "  by  common  fame,  but  by  the  Eivangel- 
ists,  by  Angels,  and  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself,  who  says, 
Matt.  26  :  18,  "  The  Master  saitb,  I  will  keep  the  Passover  at  thy 
house  with  my  disciples."  It  would  seem  to  be  impossible  to 
avoid  the  conclusion  that  this  is  a  command  to  make  disciples  to 
Christ.  This  is  farther  confirmed  by  the  declaration  (subsequent 
to  the  command  and  action  under  it)  in  Acts  1 1  :  2G,  "  They  taught 
a  great  multitude,  and  the  disciples  were  called  CHRisTta?ii>  first 
in  Antioch,"  which  clearly  implies  that  they  were  made  disciples 
by  "  teaching  "  as  commanded  by  Christ,  and  that  they  were  made 
and  popularly  recognized  as  disciples  of  CinusT.  The  truth  is  of 
practical  importance,  because  it  shows  that  this  discipling  cannot 
depend  upon  or  be  expounded  by  "  baptizing  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;"  for  disciples  to  C/».ri.s<,  obviously, 
can  never  be  constituted  by  such  a  baptism ;  and  while  a  ritual 
baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  etc.,  would  constitute  all 
so  baptized  disciples  of  the  Triune  God,  yet  there  are  no  such 
"disciples"  recognized  or  recognizable  under  the  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures.  They  who  become  related  to  the  Triune  God,  become 
related  to  Him  as  redeemed  and  reconciled  subjects  and  worship- 
pers, and  not  as  discii)les.  While,  therefore,  we  recognize  a  vital 
and  indissoluble  relation  between  this  discipling  and  this  baptiz- 
ing, we  must  as  distinctly  recognize  a  diversity  which  precludes 
the  baptizing  from  being  either  causative  or  expository  of  the 
specific  character  of  the  discipleship. 

2.  A  second  question  arises :  What  enters  into  discipling  to 


DISCIPLE.  445 

Christ?  Among  these  elements  are,  1.  Repentance  for  sin;  2. 
Faith  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sin ;  3.  Obedience  as  evidence  of 
repentance  and  faith  ;  4.  Ritual  baptism,  symbol  of  the  remission 
of  sin.  We  have  seen  from  Acts  11  :  26,  that  "  teaching  "  (ScSd^ai) 
enters  into  discipleship;  and  we  learn  the  same,  impliedly,  from 
Joiin  4:  1,  2,  and  farther,  that  ritual  baptism  was  an  accompani- 
ment of  and  consequent  upon  making  disciples  to  Christ.  John 
did  not  make  or  baptize  disciples  for  himself,  but  for  the  Coming 
One.  Paul  indignantly  rejects  the  idea,  that  be  made  disciples 
for  himself,  or  "  baptized  into  his  own  name,"  or  apart  from  Christ 
crucified.  But  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  did  make  disciples  for  him- 
self; and  the}-  were  in  his  presence  (John  4  : 1,  2),  and  bj^  his 
authority  after  his  ascension  (Acts  10  :  48),  baptized  ritually  as  his 
disciples.  There  is  no  other  ritual  baptism  of  disciples  in  the 
New  Testament  but  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  We 
must  recognize,  therefore,  aVitual  baptism  of  disciples  into  Christ, 
as  essentially  contained  in  the  command  to  "  disciple,"  which  bap- 
tism is  another  and  diverse  from  the  additionally  enjoined  "  bap- 
tizing into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  tlie  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  which  is  a  real  baptism  witliout  an}'  attending  rite. 
Discipling  to  Christ  is  that  real  baptism  "into  Christ"  (so  fre- 
quently spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures)  which  is  effected  by  the  truth 
blessed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  makes  such  disciples  partakers 
of  all  the  fruits  of  Christ's  redemption  ;  among  which  is  this  all- 
comprehending  and  never-ending  baptism  (=  complete  subjection 
and  moral  assimilation)  into  the  living  and  true  God.  This  real 
baptism  into  Christ  is  attended  with  a  rite  in  which  the  cleansing 
of  the  soul  from  sin,  by  the  blood  of  Christ  received  through  faith, 
is  symbolized  by  pure  water. 

The  sinner  m  aM  his  guilt  may  be,  must  be  "  baptized  into 
Christ "  (the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  sin) ;  but  no  sinner 
IN  HIS  QUILT  can  be  "  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Father,' and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  nor  is  there  any  qualify  in  the 
Godhead,  as  such,  qualifying  it  to  purge  the  sins  of  the  guilty ; 
therefore^  the  necessity  for  the  Second  Person  of  the  Godhead  to 
become  incarnate,  in  order  that  as  "Jesus,"  he  might  "save  his 
people  from  their  sins;"  and  so  fit  them  for  baptism  (=^  subjec- 
tion, assimilation,  and  gracious  fellowship)  into  the  Godhead  in 
its  holiness.  The  baptism  (real)  of  sinners  "  into  Christ  "  is  an 
antecedent  sine  qua  non,  and  an  efficient  cause  of  the  baptism  of 
sinners  (not  in  their  guilt,  but)  redeeiMed  and  purged  and  re- 


446  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

CONCILED  into  the  absolute  Deity.  The  ritual  baptism  of  Christi- 
anit}'  with  its  s3'mbol  water,  belongs  obviouslj-  to  the  former  bap- 
tism, and  not  to  the  latter.  And  yet  the  Church,  for  many  ages, 
has  verbally  separated  the  ritual  symbol  from  the  causative  bap- 
tism ^Hnto  Christ,"  and  attached  it  to  the  resultant  baptism 
"  into  the  name  of  tlie  Father,  and  of  tlie  Son,  and  of  tlie  Holy 
Ghost."  These  baptisms  have  an  inseparable  connection ;  and 
yet,  the}'  have  as  essential  a  difference  as  the  Son  incarnate 
bleeding  on  the  Cross,  and  the  Trinity  unincarnate  reigning  on 

the  THRONE. 

All  Nations. 

rirhrrx  TO.  tO'^-q:  The  command  to  disciple  all  nations  by  preach- 
ing and  teaching  has  evolved  tlie  sentiment,  Tliat  none  others  are 
to  be  discipled  to  Christ  but  those  who  can  understandingly  hear 
the  gospel  and  personal!}'  repent  and  believe.  This  sentiment 
cannot  be  true,  1.  Because  it  destroys  the  command  whicli  it  pro- 
fesses to  expound.  "All  nations  "  is  equivalent  to  the  human 
race.  Now,  there  never  was  a  nation,  nor  was  there  ever  a  period 
in  which  the  human  race  did  not  embrace  a  vastly  numerous  ele- 
ment (essential  to  the  being  of  a  nation  and  of  the  race)  wdiich 
was  incapable  of  being  discipled  to  Christ,  by  the  intelligent  hear- 
ing of  the  gospel  and  by  personal  repentance  and  faith.  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  all  nations  (=  the  human  race)  can  never, 
thus,  be  discipled  to  Christ;  but  the  command  is  so  to  disciple; 
therefore  it  is  not  true,  that  preaching  and  teaching  are  the  only 
means  for  discipling  to  Christ,  or  making  the  nations  participants 
in  the  blessings  of  his  redemption.  2;  Preaching  and  teaching 
can  only  be  regarded  as  mentioned  as  being  the  obvious  and  out- 
standing, but  not  the  exclusive,  means  for  communicating  Christ's 
blessings.  Preaching  and  teaching  are  not  of  themselves  suffi- 
cient to  disciple  the  nations — "  Paul  may  plant  and  A  polios  may 
■water,  but  God  only  gives  the  increase."  Those  who  hold  this 
sentiment  do  not  use  merely  preaching  and  teaching  for  disci- 
pling to  Christ;  but  use  prayer  as  essential  means  to  give  them 
discipling  power.  But  if  God  be  not  limited  to  preaching,  and 
teaching,  as  a  means  for  conveying  the  blessing  of  Christ,  then. 
He  may  in  answer  to  prayer  or  moved  by  the  direct  intercession 
of  Christy  give  that  blessing  through  other  channels.  That  this 
is  true,  not  only  as  possible  but  as  fact,  is  shown  by  the  blessing 
of  Christ  bestowed  upon  the  little  children  brought  to  him;  and 


ALL    NATIONS.  447 

also  by  the  Holy  Ghost  bestowed  upon  John  from  his  birth  hour. 
As  it  is  true,  that  countless  millions  of  the  nations  cannot  be 
brought  to  Christ  by  teaching  and  personal  understanding  of  the 
truth,  so  also  is  it  true,  that  these  are  not  the  only  means  for 
bringing  the  nations  to  Christ,  else  would  he  not  have  taught  us 
to  pray — "  Th}'  kingdom  come,  thy  will  be  done  in  earth  as  it  is 
done  in  heaven."  The  ultimate  and  only  essential  agenc}'  in 
bringing  the  soul  to  Christ,  is  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  "  the  residue 
of  the  Spirit  is  with  God."  Discipling  is  not  an  ultimate  end  of 
the  gospel,  but  a  means  to  secure  the  blessings  of  redemption  in 
Christ.  But  even  this  is  not  the  ultimate  end  of  the  gospel ;  the 
work  of  Christ  is  not  done  until  as  Mediator  and  Advocate  he 
reconciles  to  the  Father  those  washed  by  his  blood,  making  them 
subject  to  his  authority  and  restoring  the  relation  (disrupted  by 
sin)  which  must  rightfully  subsist  between  the  creature  and  the 
Creator. 

Salvation  is  in  Christ.  Preaching  and  teaching  are  not  ex- 
haustive channel-ways  for  its  outflowings;  else,  all  infants  dying 
in  infancy  must  be  excluded,  not  merely  by  their  sin  but  by 
their  infancy,  from  redemption.  And  inasmuch  as  infants  are  a 
grand,  integral  part  of  the  nations,  the  elimination  of  which  is 
destructive  to  the  idea  of  a  nation  (natus),  to  exclude  infants 
from  the  command  "to  disciple  the  nations"  is  to  annul  that 
command.  But  this  command  must  stand  ;  there/ore,  "  disciple" 
must  represent  either  a  principal  (not  exclusive)  means  only,  or 
it  must  have  a  breadth  of  meaning  which  will  embrace  every 
essential  element  entering  into  the  being  of  "the  nations  "  (=  the 
human  race)  to  wit,  little  children. 

2.  This  sentiment  is  not  true,  because  it  overturns  the  divine 
economy  under  which  the  human  race  exists  and  b}^  which  it  ever 
has  been  and  still  is  governed. 

The  human  race  has  been  divinely  established  not  on  the  basis 
of  an  absolute  individual  personalitj^,  but  under  a  Famil^^  consti- 
tution. By  this  constitution  we  have  the  primal  twain-unity  of 
man  and  woman  in  the  divine  relation  of  marriage,  issuino-in  off- 
spring after  their  likeness  "  bone  of  their  bone,  flesh  of  tlieir 
flesh,"  creating  a  Family  unity  in  its  most  limited  aspect,  which 
develops  under  the  divine  law  of  marriage,  through  the  multipli- 
cation of  such  Family  unities,  into  tribal  unit}',  national  unity, 
and  race  unity.  This  Family  unity,  in  its  narrowest  beginning 
to  its  broadest  development,  is  under  law  ;  not  law  which  elimi- 


448  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

nates  each  individual  from  each  other  and  lays  its  claims  upon 
each  as  an  isolated  personality  whose  responsibilities  begin  and 
end  within  his  own  self-consciousness  ;  but  as  a  part  of  a  whole, 
and  when  self-consciousness  begins  it  finds  itself  included  within 
law  most  absolute  and  in  fullest  operation.  The  individual  exists 
within  and  under  all  the  responsibilities  of  this  Family  unit3^ 
This  economy  which  unites  parent  and  child  in  a  unity  (phj'^sical 
and  moral)  is  invested  with  amazing  powers,  responsibilities,  and 
issues.  As  it  is  established  by  God,  so  it  has  been  inflexiblj' 
observed  by  Him  in  all  his  dealings  with  the  human  race,  whether 
in  pliysics  or  in  morals,  in  law  or  in  grace. 

Now,  this  economy  is  utterly  subverted  by  the  sentiment  which 
declares  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  established  a  kingdom 
among  men  from  which  the  divine  corner-stone  of  human  exist- 
ence. Family  unity,  is  stricken  away,  and  a  naked  individualism 
is  substituted  for  it.  But  it  is  profoundly  incredible  that  God 
would  abandon  his  chosen  economj^  and  substitute  for  it  another 
radically  diverse ;  and,  more,  it  is  manifestly  not  true  in  fact. 
This  economy  still  exists  in  providence,  still  reigns  under  the 
moral  law,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  "  did  not  come  to  destroy 
the  Law,  but  to  fulfil,''  therefore  "  he  was  made  of  a  woman," 
thus  incorporated  in  the  Family  race  unity,  "  made  under  the 
law,"  from  his  birth-hour,  "  to  redeem  them  that  are  under  the 
law,"  provided,  they  live  long  enough  personally  to  understand 
preaching  and  teaching!  So,  Dr.  Carson  (p.  173)  says:  "The 
Gospel  has  to  do  with  those  that  hear  it.  It  is  good  news  ;  but 
to  infants  it  is  not  news  at  all.  They  know  nothing  of  it.  The 
Gospel  has  nothing  to  do  with  infants.  Consequentl}',  by  the 
Gospel  no  infant  can  be  saved.  .  .  .  Infants  are  saved  by  the 
death  of  Christ,  but  not  b}'  the  Gospel."  And,  so  (p.  215),  in 
capitals,  "Infants  are  not  SxYvkd  by  the  New  Covenant."  Dr. 
Carson  is  honest  and  bold.  He  is  honestly  bold  when  he  declares 
that  he  will  "  order  Gabriel  to  school  "  should  he  venture  to  differ 
from  hiin  in  Greek  criticism  ;  but  there  is  sometiiing  astounding 
in  the  courage  which  dares  to  dash  a  human  theory  against  the 
divine  economy  of  all  ages.  But  it  may  be,  that  some  potsherds 
are  thus  best  broken. 

We  reject  that  sentiment  which  rejects  God's  economy  toward 
our  race.  We  claim,  under  that  economj^,  the  right  and  the  duty 
of  parents  (shadowed  by  Gos^jcI  promises — "  the  promise  is  to 
you  and  your  children  "),  to  ask  for  their  speechless,  new-born 


BAPTIZING    INTO    THE    NAME.  449 

cliildren,  a  place  in  the  bleeding  bosom  of  Jesus.  And  such 
parents  need  not  fear  his  turning  them  away,  saying — "  Infants 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Gospel ;  it  is  not  good  news  to  them  ; 
it  is  no  news  at  all;  they  are  not  saved  by  the  new  covenant; 
although  they  be  '  bone  of  your  bone,  and  flesh  of  your  flesh,'  yet, 
such  unity  does  not  bring  them  under  the  Gospel  with  you  ;  you 
cannot,  by  any  promise  within  the  Gospel,  pray  to  me  to  bless 
your  children ;  when  they  get  old  enough  to  understand  preach- 
ing then  they  will  be  brought  within  the  range  of  the  Gospel  and 
you  can  pray  for  them,  that  they  may  be  saved  by  the  Gospel." 
This  may  have  been  the  Gospel  of  those  who  forl)ade  little  .chil- 
dren to  be  brought  to  Jesus ;  but  we  have  his  indignant  rejection 
of  it  as  another  gospel  and  not  his.     We  will  not  have  it. 

3.  The  sentiment  which  eliminates  the  infant  children  of  the 
human  race  from  a  common  redemption  with  their  parents  (dis- 
solving the  divine  unity  between  parents  and  children  under 
which  the  hurtian  race  exists),  is,  on  its  face,  absurd.  The  com- 
mand to  "  disciple  all  nations,"  does  not  subvert  the  economy 
under  which  "all  nations"  exist. 

Baptizing  into  the  Name. 

BanrO^ovTs^  aurohq  dq  to  ovofj.a :  The  manifold  diversities  in  the 
interpretation  of  these  words  and  the  entire  lack  of  any  one  com- 
manding acceptance  above  its  fellows,  while  the  prevalent  trans- 
lation "in  the  name"  and  its  common  understanding  "by  the 
authority  of"  has  scarcely  an  advocate  among  scholars,  seems  to 
demand  as  a  necessarj'  conclusion,  that  there  must  be  some  essen- 
tial error  in  the  understanding  of  the  words,  or  of  their  relations 
to  each  other.  If  these  points  are  rightly  settled  on  just  and  rec- 
ognized principles,  an  interpretation  should  be  developed  such 
as  must  command  general  if  not  universal  assent.  Let  us  renew- 
edly  examine  these  points  and  see  whether  such  an  interpretation 
can  be  reached. 

Ba7TTi!^w:  1.  This  word  primarily  makes  demand  for  the  intus- 
position  of  its  object  within  a  fluid  element,  by  any  competent 
act,  moving  indiflTerentl}^  the  object  or  the  element,  without  limi- 
tation of  time  as  to  the  continuance  in  such  intusposition,  thus 
bringing  the  object  into  anew  and  thoroughly  changed  condition. 
2.  This  word  introduces  its  object  verbally  into  an  ideal  element 
suggestive  of  a  thorough  change  of  condition  in  conformity  with 

29 


450  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

the  characteristic  of  the  ideal  element.  3.  This  word  is  used 
absolutely  to  express  a  thorou^^h  change  of  condition,  the  specific 
character  of  which  is  well  understood  by  long  and  familiar  use. 
Tiie  most  important  element  in  this  word  is  intuHposition  with 

UNLIMITED    CONTINUANCK. 

While  there  are  some  objects  which,  by  reason  of  their  nature 
or  that  of  the  element  into  which  they  ai'e  introduced,  ma}'  be 
materially  influenced  by  a  brief  intusposition,  such  objects  are 
few,  especially  when  d3"eing  liquids  are  excepted  from  the  ele- 
ments to  be  used,  as  is  true  in  this  case,  they  being  committed  to 
/3a-Tw. 

It  is  obvious,  that  any  object  which  is  capable  of  being  influ- 
enced by  a  given  element,  will  be  so  influenced  most  profoundly 
by  being  enveloped  in  it  for  an  unlimited  time.  And  there  are 
but  few  objects  indeed,  which  are  not  susceptible  of  such  influ- 
ence by  some  one  or  another  element.  For  this  reason  baptizing 
into  an  element  was  practiced  in  order  to  secure  the  influence  of 
the  element  by  the  communication  of  its  quality  to  the  baptized 
object.  Thus. human  beings  were  baptized  into  water,  in  order  to 
secure  its  destructive  influence  over  life ;  a  medical  prescription 
was  baptized  into  milk,  in  order  to  secure  its  emollient  influence ; 
the  hand  was  baptized  into  blood,  in  order  to  secure  its  coloring 
influence  for  writing;  and  hot  iron  was  baptized  into  water,  in 
order  to  secure  its  heat-quenching  influence. 

4.  While  there  are  some  elements  which  impart  their  character- 
istic qualities  onl}'  when  the  object  is  enveloped  within  them  for 
an  indefinite  period,  there  are  others  which  will  do  this  equally 
well  witliout  envelopment  at  all.  Tlius,  water  will  quench  heat 
equally  well  whether  the  heated  object  be  enveloped  in  it,  or  the 
water  be  poured  upon  it.  There  are  other  elements  which  will 
not  impart  their  characteristic  quality  by  envelopment,  but  will 
do  so,  in  otlier  appropriate  ways,  witliout  enveloj)meut.  Thus, 
wine  will  not  impart  its  intoxicating  quality  to  a  man  by  envelop- 
ment within  it,  but  will  do  so  to  a  man  who  will  drink  it ;  and 
a  druf/  will  not  impart  its  quality  b}'  envelopment  within  it,  but 
it  will  do  so  when  taken  into  the  stomach;  so  also,  soi)histical 
questions  and  countless  other  things  impart  their  characteristic 
qualities,  through  appropriate  channels,  without  envelopment. 
This  result  being  identical  in  character  (controlling  influence  by 
imparted  «p>ality)  with  that  effected  by  (uivelopmeut,  it  would  be 
natural  aud  accordant  with  language  development,  to  apply  the 


BAPTIZING    INTO    THE    NAME.  451 

same  word  to  all  cases  where  the  same  generic  result  was  effected 
(although  by  various  methods)  to  designate  such  result,  without 
regard  to  the  method.  And  this,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  has  been 
done  and  indicated  by  a  change  of  S3'ntax  ;  the  Dative  (indicating 
the  agency  and  controlling  quality  imparted)  being  substituted  for 
d?  and  its  regimen.  Thus  we  have  hot  iron  baptized  (quenched) 
hy  water  {uliaTt) ;  a  man  baptized  (made  drunk)  by  wine  (or^o)  ; 
a  man  baptized  (stupefied)  by  a  drug  ((pappAxw)  •  a  youth  bap- 
tized (bewildered)  by  questions,  by  study,  etc.,  etc.  This  usage 
of  the  Dative  is  more  common  than  that  of-  ec'c  and  the  Accusa- 
tive. 

5.  There  is  another  class  of  elements,  not  physical,  into  which 
an  olyect  cannot  pass,  but,  in  fact,  the  association  of  i3anri%ut  siq 
with  which  indicates  the  impartation  of  their  qualities  to  the  ob- 
ject of  the  verb.     Thus  we  have  a  baptism  (sk  dvaccrOrjfTia'^)  into 

INSENSIBILITY;  (e;?  umov)  tnto  SLEEP  ;  (e]<;  nop'^eca'^)  into  FORNICA- 
TION. This  form  of  expression  denotes  (by  a  suggestive  refer- 
ence to  physical  elements)  the  subjection  of  the  object  to  the 
controlling  influence,  respectively,  of  "insensibility,"  "sleep," 
"  fornication,"  thereby  thoroughly  changing  its  condition. 

This  form  for  expressing  a  baptism,  and  this  class  of  elements 
not  susceptible  of  intusposition,  is  the  onl}'  form  and  character 
of  element  to  be  met  with  in  the  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament. 
Thus  we  have  a  baptism  (d?  iierd-Mnav)  into  repentance  ;  (s;"?  afstrtv 
aiiapricbv)  into  the  remission  of  sins;  {dz  rd  woim  toT>  Kopiuo  "" Ir^rniu) 
into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus;  (ei?  Xpiazw  'l-qaauv)  into  Jesus 
Christ;  {elq  Xpiardv)  into  Christ;  {ft-  rov  dw^arov  amou)  into  his 
death ;  {elq,  h  awim)  into  one  body ;  (si?  Muxry^v)  into  Moses  ;  {e\q  ro 

6v()[j.a  llauXiiu)  into  the  name  of  Paul ;  {e]q  rd  ovo/j-a  too  llarpoq  xai  Ttiij 

Ttou  xai  TOO  "Ayiou  [Jveu/j.aTO':)  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Hol}'^  Ghost.  All  such  baptisms  do  and  can 
only  indicate,  a  thoroughly  changed  condition  of  the  soul  con- 
formed TO  THE  characteristic   QUALITY   OF  THE  IDEAL  ELEMENT. 

Tills  is  an  unvarying  truth.  In  such  of  these  baptisms  as  are 
associated  with  a  S3'mbol  rite,  as  £?c  /leTd'/ocav^  s^e;  atpemv  atj-apncLv^  e\i; 
rov  JpcfTTuv  (varied  forms  for  expressing  the  "  one  baptism " 
cleansing  the  soul  from  sin),  the  efficient  agency  (ev  Ihsu/iarc  ""Ayiuj) 
effecting  the  real  baptism,  and  the  symbol  agency  (Iv  udurc.  uSarc) 
shadowing  the  nature  of  the  baptism  so  effected,  are  stated  in 
the  Dative  ;  thus  giving  the  last  degree  of  precision  which  the 
statement  of  any  baptism  can  possess. 


452  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Into. 

Elq :  This  preposition  in  organic  relation  with  ftaircriXo}  can  onl}'' 
(from  the  nature  of  the  verb  as  established)  be  translated  into. 
It  cannot  be  divorced  from  the  verb  in  order  to  express  a  telic 
sense.  This  would  require  a  second  preposition,  thus:  "Gedaliah 
was  baptized  by  wine  {ek)  into  insensibility  {dq)  for^  unto,  in 
order  to,  his  murder."  "Sinners  are  baptized  (sk)  into  Christ 
(elq)  for,  iinto,  in  order  to,  the  remission  of  sins."  "  Eupolis  was 
baptized  (si<;)  into  the  sea  {d'z),for,  %mto,  in  order  to,  his  being 
drowned."  The  verb  in  such  form  of  expression  can  no  more 
fulfil  its  function,  deprived  of  its  preposition,  than  the  arm  can 
act  with  its  hand  cut  off. 

The  Name. 

To  ovofia :  "  The  Name,"  applied  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  not  severally  and  distinctively  but  jointly  and  in 
common,  is  indicative  of  union  and  communion  in  all  that  enters 
into  "  the  Name,"  and  especially  of  that  supi-eme  Sovereignty 
which  belongs  to  the  peculiar,  divine  Three-One  existence  of  the 
Godhead  in  relation  to  all  created  beings. 

A  baptism  into  the  Father  distinctively,  would  differ  from  a 
baptism  into  the  Son  distinctivel}^  and  both  such  distinctive 
baptisms  would  differ  from  a  baptism  into  the  Holy  Ghost  dis- 
tinctively, while  each  would  differ  from  a  baptism  "  into  the 
Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  H0I3'  Ghost," 
because  a  baptism  into  the  several  persons  of  the  Trinity  vvould 
indicate  subjection  to  the  control  of  that  which  was  distinctive  of 
each  Person,  while  a  baptism  "  into  the  Name,"  etc.,  is  indicative 
of  subjection  to  the  controlling  influence  of  that  which  is  common 
to  their  essential  Deity. 

The  value  of  the  several  elements  which  enter  into  the  phrase 
being  determined,  we  are  enabled  to  determine  the  value  of  the 
entire  phrase. 

Baptizing  them  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

liar.ri'^ovrE!;  aoruhq  e\<;  to  ovofia  rou  TlaTpb':,  xai  too  Tiou,  xat  zoo  'Ayiou 
IhdtiLarix;:  This  is  an  organic  phrase  whose  parts  cannot  be  sepa- 
rated without  destruction  to  the  sentiment.     T6  ovofxa  is  through 


BAPTIZING    THEM    INTO    THE    NAME,   ETC.  453 

eiq  in  organic  relation  with  l3a7tTi!^ovT£<;,  onthe  one  hand,  and  with 
TOL>  Tlarpoq^  y.oiX  zau  Ylou^  xa\  too  " Ayioo  UvsviiaToq  collectively,  as  a 
unity  by  nature,  on  the  other  hand. 

The  meaning  of  the  phrase,  according  to  the  interpretation  of 
every  like  phrase  whether  within  or  without  the  Scriptures,  is, 
the  subjection  and  reconciliation  of  the  redeemed  by  Christ  to 
the  Triune  God,  from  whom  they  had  revolted  and  been  alienated 
by  sin. 

The  relation  of  this  wonderful  baptism  to  the  baptism  into 
Christ  (which  is  only  another  form  for  expressing  discipleship,  as 
Paul  rejecting  Corinthian  disciples,  asks :  "  Were  ye  baptized 
into  the  name  of  Paul ")  is  of  like  general  character  with  the  I'e- 
lation  of  the  baptism  (ek  a<ps<nv  d;mpTcuJv)  into  the  remission  of 
sins,  to  the  baptism  (sk  /jsravota'^)  into  repentance,  namely,  that 
of  an  effect  to  its  cause.  That  such  is  the  relation  between  these 
baptisms  is  expressly'  declared  by  Luke  3:3,"  preaching  (/SaTTTt^/xa 
lisravoiaq  ei<;  a<ptai-^  aij.apxiwv^  baptism  of  (b}^)  repentance  into  the 
remission  of  sins,"  which  is  illustrated  by  a  like  construction  in 
Josephus  (J.  A.  X.,  9),  ''''  [is-iiannaixtvov  uitb  jiiOyjq  elq  wjaiad-qaiav 
Baptized  by  drunkenness  into  insensibility."  Baptism  into  drunk- 
enness precedes  and  is  causative  of  baptism  into  insensibilit}',  and 
is  here  expressed  as  a  baptism  hy  drunkenness  into  insensibility. 
In  like  manner,'  baptism  into  Christ  precedes  and  is  causative  of 
the  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  not  of  accident,  or  as  simply  antecedent, 
that  the  soul  is  so  related  to  Chi-ist ;  but  it  is  of  essence,  and  in 
order  to  the  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  etc.  This  re- 
lation is  illustrated  by  the  passage,  "I  am  the  way,  the  truth, 
and  the  life,  no  man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  b}"  me,"  and  by 
suchlike  passages  ;  which  teach  that  the  sinner  cannot  come  unto 
the  unincarnate  Deity,  until  he  has  come  to  the  incarnate  Son  and 
been  cleansed  and  reconciled  through  his  atoning  blood.  This 
baptism  of  all  who  are  Christ's  into  the  Father,  etc.,  is  further 
illustrated  by  the  Saviour's  word — "  all  mine  are  thine,  and  thine 
are  mine,"  .  .  .  "that  they  all  may  be  one;  as  thou  Father  art  in  me 
and  I  in  thee,  that  they  may  be  one  in  us."  It  is  baptism  into 
(=  full  subjection  to)  the  Father,  Son,  and  Hol^^  Ghost,  that 
gives  final  and  eternal  unity  to  all  redeemed  by  the  incarnate 
Son.  And  this  subjection  of  all  who  are  Christ's  to  the  absolute 
Deity  is  intimately  related  to  that  other  great  truth :  "  Then 
cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to 


454  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

God,  even  the  Father ;  when  he  shall  have  pnt  down  all  rule  and 
all  authorit}^  and  power.  For  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all 
enemies  under  his  feet.  .  .  .  And  when  all  things  shall  be  sub- 
dued unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto 
him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all." 

If  it  should  be  objected — "That  the  Apostles  could  not  bap- 
tize into  (=  subject  to)  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;"  the 
answer  is — Neither  could  thej^  "make  disciples  to  Christ"  except 
by  the  power  of  him  unto  whom  all  power  in  heaven  and  on  earth 
was  given.  If  further  vindication  of  such  a  command  being 
given  to  the  Apostles  were  needed,  it  may  be  found  in  the  com- 
mission given  to  Paul  (Acts  26: 17,  18),  "Delivering  thee  from 
the  people,  and  from  the  Gentiles,  unto  whom  I  now  make  thee 
an  apostle  {anoariXXu))^  to  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from 
darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  to  God,  that  they 
may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  inheritance  among  them 
which  are  sanctified  by  faith  which  {ek  i/j.i) "  =  baptize  into 
me.  (?)  The  command  to  Paul  "to  turn  men  from  the  power  of 
Satan  to  God  "  is  substantiall}'  the  same  command  as  that  given 
to  the  other  Apostles  and  expressed  in  the  words,  "baptizing 
them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  It  is  the  power  of  Satan  which  keeps  men  from 
baptism  into  (=  subjection  to)  God. 

And  Paul  was  no  more  able  to  turn  the  souls  of  men  from  the 
power  of  Satan  than  the  other  Apostles  were  to  baptize  them  into 
the  living  and  true  God.  The  two  commissions  diverse  in  phrase- 
ology are  the  same  in  substance.  Turning  from  subjection  and 
assimilation  to  Satan  unto  God  (=  being  made  subject  and  as- 
sirailaut  to  the  Deity)  is  equivalent  to  and  expositor3'  of,  baptiz- 
ing them  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  There  is  a  baptism  out  of  Satan  (1  John  5:19, 
Alford)  the  God  of  this  world  into  the  living  and  true  God.  The 
"  forgiveness  of  sins,"  which  Paul  was  to  secure  was  bound  up  in 
"discipling  to  Christ"  enjoined  upon  the  other  Apostles.  We 
are  justified  in  suppl^dng  baptizes  to  meet  the  demand  of  £t?  f,ae, 
because  of  such  use  elsewhere  in  Scripture  to  express  the  source 
and  attainment  of  the  remission  of  sins.  This  brings  into  fullest 
harmony  vvith  the  Commission  in  Mark  16  :  16,  "  lie  that  believeth 
(upon  Clirist)  and  is  (thus)  baptized  (into  Christ)  shall  be  saved." 
Paul's  commission  like  that  of  his  fellow-apostles  teaches,  that 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  salvation  ("  inheritance  among  the 


BAPTIZING    THEM    INTO    THE    NAME,    ETC.  455 

sanctified")  is  by  faith,  which  brings  the  soul  into  Christ  =  bap- 
tizes £i<;  ifxL 

'  If  a  different  solution  of  the  baptism  commanded  in  Matthew 
be  attempted,  b}'  claiming,  that  baptism  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  equivalent  to 
baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  because  of  his  divine 
nature  as  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  and  therefore,  the 
latter  formula  was  constantly  used  (to  the  neglect  of  that  formula 
used  in  the  Commission)  in  ritual  baptism  b^'  the  Apostles,  this 
answer  may  be  given :  1.  The  language  of  inspiration  announces 
a  real  baptism  as  distinctly  as  can  be  done  by  the  use  of  words ; 
2.  There  is  absolutely  no  evidence  of  a  ritual  baptism  in  connection 
with  these  words,  either  in  this  passage  or  anywhere  else  in  Scrip- 
ture ;  3.  A  more  violent  improbability  was  never  suggested  than, 
that  the  Apostles  having  been  commanded  to  baptize,  ritually, 
into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  should  never  in  a  single  instance  so  baptize,  but  should 
substitute  another  formula  for  it ;  4.  The  ground  by  which  this 
suggestion  is  sought  to  be  sustained,  namely,  that  baptism  into 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
equivalent  to  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  is  abso- 
lute error.  It  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  to  say,  that  the  Second 
Person  of  the  Trinity  is  equal  in  being  and  dignity  with  the  first 
Person  and  the  third  Person  and  may,  in  this  respect,  represent 
the  whole ;  because  this  is  not  the  point  at  issue.  There  is  no 
more  a  ritual  baptism  into  the  Son  the  second  Person,  than  there 
is  a  baptism  into  the  Father  the  first  Person,  or  into  the  Holy 
Ghost  the  third  Person  of  the  Godhead.  The  baptism  is  into  the 
Son  incarnate,  as  exhibited  in  the  person  of  "the  Lord  Jesus," 
"  Jesus  Christ,"  "  Christ."  Will  au}^  one  say,  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  indifferent  equivalence  whether  we  say,  the  Son  became  the 
babe  of  Bethlehem,  the  Man  of  Nazareth,  the  Crucified  of  Calvary, 
or  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  were  so  born,  so  lived, 
and  so  died  ?  But  it  is  just  because  the  Son  was  born  of  a  woman, 
lived  under  the  Law  and  died  bearing  the  penalty  of  the  Law, 
that  his  people  are  baptized  into  Him,  and  into  his  death.  The 
New  Testament  knows  nothing  more  of  a  baptism  into  the  Son 
simply,  as  a  remission  of  sins,  than  it  does  of  a  baptism  into  the 
Trinity  for  the  remission  of  sins ;  nor  would  there  be  any  fitness 
or  power  in  either  of  such  baptisms  to  remit  sins.  Winer  (N.  T. 
G.,  p.  192)  says:  "Matt.  28  :  19  says  nothing  about  the  forgive- 


456  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

ness  of  sins."  It  is  into  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  "  and  dying 
as  "  the  Lamb  of  God  slain  to  talie  awaj^  the  sins  of  the  world," 
that  a  sin-remitting  baptism  must  be  secured.  If  a  baptism  into 
the  uninearnate  Son  or  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  could  have  secured  remission  and  reconciliation, 
then,  the  Son  would  never  have  become  incarnate^  and  died  upon 
the  Cross.  Until  therefore  it  shall  be  affirmed,  that  a  baptism 
of  disciples  washed  by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  into  the  abso- 
lute Deit}'  is  the  same  or  the  equivalent  to  a  baptism  of  sinners 
unwashen  of  their  guilt  into  the  incarnate  Redeemer  slain  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  it  must  be  an  untenable  error  to  sa}',  that  the 
baptism  in  the  Commission  as  recited  by  Matthew,  is  the  same  as 
that  baptism  announced  by  the  Apostles  and  their  associates  as 
they  went  forth  to  execute  that  Commission  preaching  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  and  reconciliation  with  the  Father  through  the  blood 
of  the  Lamb. 

Cause  and  effect  while  inseparabl}'  related  can  never  be  the 
same,  nor  essential  equivalents.  They  do  reciprocally  include 
each  other. 

Teaching  them  to  Observe. 

^^Atddaxovreq  abzuuq  ryjpelv :  Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  This  teaching  stands  re- 
lated both  to  the  discipling  and  to  the  baptizing  and  yet,  neither 
to  the  making  disciples  nor  originating  the  baptism.  The  teach- 
ing is  clearly  to  be  addressed  to  "  them  "  who  are  already  dis- 
cipled,  and  out  of  this  discipleship  proceeds  the  baptizing  into 
the  Name.  Both  the  discipleship  and  the  baptism  are  vital  germs, 
the  vitalization  of  which  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  development 
of  the  vitalit}'  is  under  the  nurture  of  truth  (teaching  them)  fos- 
tered by  the  same  Divine  Spirit.  That  this  teaching  does  not 
refer  to*the  original  making  of  disciples  is  further  shown  in  the 
statement,  that  it  is  not  for  enrolment  as  disciples,  but  for  the 
progressive  development  of  discipleship  already  established,  and 
manifested  by  tlie  observance  of  all  that  enters  into  it  as  from 
time  to  time  unfolded. 

The  Apostles  while  commanded  to  disciple,  were  not  com- 
manded so  to  do  by  an}^  power  inherent  within  themselves  or  in 
their  teaching;  but  on  the  clearly  declared  ground  of  the  commit- 
tal of  all  power  to  their  Lord.  With  him  the  Holy  Ghost  abode, 
and  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  under  the  ministry  of 


TEACHING    THEM    TO    OBSERVE.  457 

the  Apostles,  he  made  disciples.  The  ordinary  means,  in  the  case 
of  adults,  by  which  this  was  accomplished,  was  the  preaching  of 
fundamental  truth  pertaining  to  sin  and  Christ ;  the  Holy  Ghost 
opening  the  heart  to  receive  the  truth,  while  repentance  for  sin 
and  faith  in  Christ  were  the  manifestations  of  a  new  birth  and  a 
germinal  discipleship.  It  is  at  this  point  that  the  "  teaching  " 
meets  us  and  assumes  the  task  of  developing  this  initial  disciple- 
ship by  a  perfected  obedience.  And  it  is  to  this  condition  of 
things  reference  is  made  in  Heb.  6  :  1,  2,  "Therefore  leaving  the 
principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection ; 
not  la3ang  again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead  works, 
and  of  faith  toward  God  =  Baptisms  of  doctrine."  The  doctrine 
of  repentance  received  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  does  bap- 
tize into  the  remission  of  sins ;  and  the  doctrine  of  faith  received 
in  like  manner,  does  baptize  into  Christ  as  Lord  and  Saviour, 
bringing  under  the  full  influence  of  his  power  to  protect  and  to 
redeem,  to  reconcile  and  to  subject  to  the  hol}^  sovereignty  of  the 
Triune  God,  thus  inti'oducing  into  everlasting  life. 

And  this  discipleship  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  germinal 
at  whatever  age  effected,  and  in  its  germ  is  neither  repentance, 
nor  faith,  nor  obedience,  nor  love,  but  regeneration,  which  may  as 
trul}'  and  as  readily  and  as  scripturally  be  imparted  to  a  new-born 
babe  in  answer  to  a  parent's  believing  pleadings,  as  to  a  sinner  a 
hundred  years  old  under  the  preaching  of  Paul ;  imless  "  all 
power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  "  is  insufficient  for  it  or  has  been 
given  in  vain.  The  teaching  commanded  stands  in  a  similar  re- 
lation to  the  baptism  as  to  the  discipleship.  They  who  are  to  be 
baptized  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  etc.,  are  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  and  they  are  so  baptized  because  they  are  and  by  conse- 
quence of  being  his  disciples.  And  this  baptism,  like  this  dis- 
cipleship, initiated  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  capable  of 
nurture  and  development  through  the  truth.  A  baptism  (=  sub- 
jection to  controlling  influence)  becomes  more  and  more  profound 
as  the  influence  to  which  it  is  subjected  does  longer  and  more 
fully  bear  upon  it,  even  nntil  the  power  of  the  object  to  receive 
becomes  exhausted.-  A  striking  illustration  of  the  power  of  ^eacA- 
ing  to  baptize  is  that  furnished  by  Clemens  Alex.  (II,  1212), 
"  ^E/.  (TwippofTuvqq  £/'?  Tiopveiav  ^anriZourri  rait;  r\8ovMq  xdl  roTq  TzdOent, 
y^api^eadai  doy/mriZovreq  TEACHING  indulgence  in  pleasures  and  pas- 
sions they  BAPTIZE  out  of  chastity  into  fornication."  The  dis- 
ciples of  these  teachers  being  brought  by  their  teachings  under 


458  'CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

the  controlling  influence  of  licentiousness  jmss  out  of  a  condition 
of  purity  and  are  baptized  into  a  condition  of  impurity.  The 
teaching  before  us,  as  it  is  the  opposite  in  moral  character,  so  it 
effects  a  morally  opposite  baptism,  namely,  out  of  the  power  of 
Satan  into  the  power  of  God.  The  disciples  of  Christ  delivered 
from  the  dominion  of  sin  and  taught  the  knowledge  of  G(?d  and 
holy  obedience,  are  more  and  more  baptized  into  the  Name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Historical. 

This  wonderful  baptism  into  the  Trinity  (dependent  upon  the 
baptism  into  the  incarnate,  atoning,  and  mediating  Son)  has  no 
direct  or  designed  relation  to  a  ritual  baptism.     It  was,-  however, 
very  soon  after  the   times  of  the  Apostles,  connected  with  the 
administration  of  the  Christian  rite,  and  continued  to  be  used  in 
common  with  the  formula  into  the  name  of  the  Loi'd  Jesus,  until 
the  third  century,  after  which  there  was  an  enactment  against 
the  use  of  the  Apostolic  formula,  and  a  declaration  that  baptism 
so  administered  was  invalid.     Such  enactment,  however,  was  in 
direct  contradiction  of  the  practice  of  the  Apostles,  and  is  rejected 
by  both  Luther  and  Calvin,  who  pronounce  baptism  into  the  Name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  be  scriptural,  while  they  observed,  in  their 
own  practice,  the  formula  which  had  been  adopted  by  the  church, 
and  continued  for  many  ages.     The  two  formulae  have  not  equal 
fitness  as  ai)plied  to  ritual  baptism.     The  fitness  of  symbol  water 
in  a  ritual  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  is  obvious. 
Its  cleansing  quality  aptly  expresses  the  cleansing  power  of  the 
atoning  blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  into  whose  name  the  baptism 
Ideally  takes  place.     But  what  does  the  water  represent  in  a  bap- 
tism of  sinners  into  the  name  of  the  Trinity  ?     There  is  no  aton- 
ing blood  there.     There  is  none  in  the  Son  as  the  second   Person 
of  the  Trinity.     And  Clirist  the  incarnate  and  the  crucified,  in 
whose  atoning  blood  the  rite  originates,  is  excluded  from  the  rite 
by  lack  of  recognition  and  the  use  of  a  formula  in  which  (as  Winer 
says)  there  is  no  remission  of  sins.     Baptism  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  most  Scriptural; 
but  the  association  of  this  baptism  luith  a  ritual  ordinance   is 
wholly  wanting  in  scriptural  authority,  whether  it  be  sought  in 
command  or  in  i)ractice.     The  only  scriptural  interpretation  tiiat 
can  be  given  of  the  conjunction  of  two  things  so  diverse,  yet  each 


PATRISTIC    WRITERS.  459 

in  itself  so  scriptural,  is  by  regarding  the  two  baptisms  as  con- 
densed into  one,  which  is  true  in  fact,  the  water  being  taken  from 
the  baptism  into  Christ,  with  which  it  is  so  appropriately  and 
scripturally  conjoined,  and  united  with  that  ulterior  baptism  into 
the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  is  dependent  upon  the  antecedent  baptism  into  Christ. 
The  baptism  effected  would  thus  be  substituted  for  the  baptism 
effecting ;  that  is  to  say,  the  cause  would  be  expressed  by  its 
effect. 

Whether  it  is,  or  ever  will  be,  the  will  of  God  that  the  Church 
should  return  to  the  use  of  the  original  formula,  is  more  than  I 
can  say.  My  own  feeling  is,  that  until  such  will  shall  be  clearly 
made  known,  it  cannot  be  displeasing  to  the  incarnate  Redeemer, 
as  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  that  every  disciple  of  his 
should  be  ritually  baptized  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  it  being  taught,  that  the  symbol 
water  of  the  rite  expresses  the  cleansing  of  his  precious  blood,  by 
which  alone  this  amazing,  ultimate,  and  everlasting  baptism  is 
effected,  and  the  guilty  and  the  lost  i*econciled  and  made  loving 
subjects  to  the  living  and  true  God.  These  two  baptisms,  while 
they  differ  in  their  immediate  purport,  are  yet  one,  in  so  far  as 
being  inseparable  and  ever  coexistent  in  the  relation  of  cause  and 
effect. 

Patristic  Writers. 

The  recognition  by  Patristic  writers  of  the  diversity  between 
the  baptism  enjoined  in  the  Commission  and  the  baptism  declared 
by  the  Apostles  in  the  administration  of  ritual  baptism  to  the 
disciples  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  the  attempt  (under  the  assump- 
tion that  the  baptism  of  the  Commission  was  related  to  a  rite) 
to  make  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  baptism 
into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  one  and  the  same  baptism,  by  diverse  explanations,  has 
been  already  mentioned,  and  may  be  referred  to  (p.  173).  Basil 
of  Caesarea  finds  the  unification  in  the  word  Christ  (=;the 
Anointed),  because  the  Father  anoints,  the  Son  is  anointed,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  anointing  influence.  Cyprian  seeks  recon- 
ciliation in  a  supposed  temporary  distinction  between  the  bap- 
tism of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Dionysius  Alexandrinus  grounds 
the  unity  in  the  indivisible  nature  of  the  Trinity,  and  treats  bap- 


460  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

tisra  into  the  name  of  Christ  as  though  it  were  baptism  "  into  the 
name  of  the  Son  "  simply.  Hilary,  without  giving  an^'^  explana- 
tion of  his  own,  makes  the  evident  diversity  between  the  baptism 
of  the  Commission  and  the  baptism  of  ritual  administration  a 
ground  for  caution  in  the  interpretation  of  passages  of  Scripture 
apparently  contradictory  or  incongruous.  Origen  expounds  the 
diverse  phraseology  on  the  ground  of  a  wise  fitness  in  the  modifi- 
cation of  the  terms,  because  to  baptize  into  Christ  is  to  baptize 
"into  his  c?ea^/i,"  and  "death"  cannot  be  used  in  connection  with 
"the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  would  be 
a  very  satisfactory  reason  to  prove  the  essential  difference  btween 
these  baptisms ;  it  is  a  very  unsatisfactory  reason  for  proving 
their  essential  sameness. 

These  divergent  attempts  at  explanation  furnish  proof  within 
themselves  that  the  true  explanation  has  not  been  reached.  The 
quotations  given  from  modern  Expositors  show,  that  no  progress 
whatever  has  been  made  toward  an  explanation  of  the  commanded 
baptism  and  the  administered  baptism,  on  the  supposition  that 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  commanded  a  ritual  baptism  into  the  Name 
of  the  Father,  ahd  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that 
the  Apostles  administered  a  ritual  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  if,  after  earnest 
endeavor  through  eighteen  centuries,  the  most  cultivated  intel- 
lects have  failed  to  shed  one  satisfactory  ray  of  light  upon  the 
subject,  from  the  standpoint  which  tliey  have  chosen,  none  can 
rationally  be  expected  from  that  same  point  through  eighteen 
thousand  years  to  come  ?  And  more  :  Is  it  too  much  to  say  that 
the  nature  of  the  case  peremptorily  excludes  any  explanation  on 
tlie  basis  of  sameness  in  these  baptisms  ?  The  sameness  of  these 
baptisms  can  never  be  proved.  It  can  only  be  assumed  on  a 
precedent  assumption  (which  can  never  be  proved)  that  the  bap- 
tism commanded  in  the  Commission  was  a  commanded  ritual 
baptism  ;  but,  yielding  this  double  impossibilit}',  we  still  say  that 
the  mystery  i-emains  untouched,  namely,  that  the  Apostles  being 
commanded  to  baptize  ritually  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Sou,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  should  baptize  rituallj-  into  the 
Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  The  solution  of  such  a  marvel  could 
only  be  obtained  by  another  revelation. 

These  facts  constitute  an  apology  for  rejecting  the  supposition 
on  which  these  long  and  fruitless  attempts  at  explanation  have 
been  made,  as  truly  as  the  multiplied  and  fruitless  cycles  and 


BAPTISM    INTO    THE    NAME.  461 

epicycles  of  Ptolemy  justified  Copernicus  in  rejecting  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  Earth  was  the  centre  of  the  Solar  system. 

We  do,  therefore,  reject  the  hypothesis  which  makes  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Commission  a  ritual  institution,  as  well  as  the  further 
hypothesis  that  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  is  the 
equivalent  of  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  deny,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
in  enjoining  the  baptism  of  his  disciples  "into  the  Name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  had  any  idea  of 
announcing  a  formula  for  a  ritual  ordinance.  All  disciples  of 
Christ  must  as  such  receive  a  ritual  baptism  into  Christ,  and  if 
after  being  discipled  to  Christ  they  are  to  be  ritually  baptized 
into  the  Name,  etc.,  then  there  must  be  two  ritual  baptisms  of 
Christianity.  Standing  on  this  ground,  we  immediately  relieve 
the  Apostles  from  the  charge  of  flagrant  disobedience  by  the  sub- 
stitution of  a  wholly  diverse  form  of  words  for  the  most  remark- 
able form  of  words  contained  in  all  the  Scriptures,  announced 
and  enjoined  under  the  most  impressive  circumstances,  and  by 
the  highest  authorit3\ 

This  denial  is  sustained :  I.  By  the  entire  absence  of  all  evidence 
in  the  Commission  in  connection  with  these  words  of  a  ritual  in- 
junction. BaTzri^ovTsq  elr;  ro  ovopM  is  a  Complete  phrase  expressing 
a  most  positive  sentiment  in  itself.  Water  (u8a-i)  cannot  be  in- 
troduced, elliptically,  into  it  by  any  recognized  law,  because  water 
nowhere  appears  in  all  Scripture  with  these  very  remarkable  words. 
Again,  these  words  cannot  be  converted  into  a  ritual  formula, 
because  thereby  the  transcendent  truth  which  they  teach  is  de- 
stroyed. A  rite  is  but  a  shadow.  This  baptism  as  it  stands  in 
the  Commission  is  a  reality.  This  reality  is  adequately  secured 
by  discipleship  to  Christ.  Therefore,  to  convert  it  into  a  ritual 
shadow,  is  not  only  to  give  a  stone  instead  of  bread,  but  worse, 
it  is  to  take  away  divine  bread  that  has  been  given,  and  to  replace 
it  with  a  human  stone.  2.  By  the  absolute  incredibility  of  the 
rejection  by  the  Apostles  of  such  a  commanded  form^ula,  and  the 
substitution  of  another.  What  amount  of  evidence  could  give 
probability  to  such  rejection  it  is  hard  to  say;  but  this  is  certain, 
there  is  not  a  particle  of  real  evidence  for  it.  3.  By  the  essential 
difference  of  the  two  formulae  as  expressed  in  their  terms.  4.  By 
the  entire  exclusion^  hereby  induced,  of  a  crucified  Redeemer 
from  the  ritual  entrance  into  that  kingdom  of  which  his  Cross  is 
the  door.    4.  By  the  want  of  significance  in  water  ritually  used  in 


462  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

a  baptism  into  the  Trinity,  which,  as  such,  has  no  qualitij  to  remit 
sin ;  while  it  is  demancled  in  a  ritual  baptism  into  Christ,  whose 
great  characteristic  is  "  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world."  5.  By  the  absolute  necessity  for  that  real  baptism 
into  Christ  (everywhere  taught  in  Scripture  and  ritually  exhibited 
by  the  Apostles)  in  order  to  that  baptism  into  the  sovereign  and 
/»o?y  Three-One  taught  in  the  Commission. 

Other  reasons  might  be  multiplied  ;  but  these  if  substantiated 
will  be  sufficient. 

The  only  objection  that  I  know  of,  that  can  be  urged  against 
this  view,  is  the  long-continued  practice  of  the  Church  in  using 
those  great  words  of  the  Commission  as  a  formula  in  ritual  bap- 
tism. This  usage  is,  in  certain  directions,  a  real  embarrassment ; 
yet,  so  far  as  touching  the  merits  of  the  case  is  concerned,  it  has 
no  place.  It  is  admitted,  both  by  ancient  and  modern  expositors, 
that  the  practice  of  the  Church  is  not  the  jjractice  of  the  Apostles. 
The  only  question  therefore,  on  the  merits  of  the  case,  is  this : 
Have  the  Apostles,  or  has  the  Church,  since  the  third  century, 
more  correctly  interpreted  the  Commission  ?  That  the  Apostles, 
in  the  administration  of  ritual  baptism,  differed  in  word  or  deed 
from  that  which  was  commanded  (be3'ond  the  supposed  substitu- 
tion of  another  formula  of  words)  is  claimed  bj'  none ;  that  the 
Church  in  the  administration  of  ritual  baptism  did  differ  from 
that  which  was  commanded,  in  wellnigh  a  score  of  wa^^s,  is 
admitted  by  all.  Whether,  then,  this  misunderstanding,  or  mal- 
practice, or  want  of  conformity  to  the  Commission,  be  more  ration- 
ally chargeable  to  the  inspired  Apostles,  or  to  the  Church  (which 
through  long  centuries  baptized  men  and  women  naked)  let  all 
men  judge. 

Vindication. 

The  interpretation  given  to  the  Commission  as  recorded  by 
Matthew  is  vindicated  by  the  statements  and  allusions  to  the 
same  as  fiirnislied  by  Mark,  Luke,  John,  and  Paul.  These  have 
already  received  consideration.  In  them  all  appears,  in  one  form 
or  another,  the  statement,  that  the  remission  of  sins  enters  into 
that  Commission  and  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  I'e- 
raission  of  sins  is  stated,  out  of  the  Commission,  as  a  baptism  into 
repentance,  into  the  remission  of  sins,  into  Christ,  and  into  his 
deatli.  Mark  speaks  of  a  baptism  which  secures  salvation,  and 
therefore    is    not  ritual    l)a[)tisra  but    real   baptism    into  Christj 


SYRIAC    VERSION.  463 

effected,  as  stated,  by  believing.  The  real  disciplesbip  of  Christ 
can  only  be  effected  by  believing  upon  Christ,  and  the  disciple- 
ship  of  Matthew  is  the  same  as  the  baptism  into  Christ  of  Mark. 
And  since  a  ritual  baptism  belonged  to  the  real  disciplesbip  and 
real  baptism  into  Christ,  it  cannot  be,  that  a  second  ritual  bap- 
tism belonged  to  that  real  baptism  into  the  Name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  was  an  ulterior, 
real  baptism  due  to  the  primary,  real  baptism  into  Christ,  the 
Redeemer,  Mediator,  and  Advocate  with  the  Father. 

Syriac  Version. 

This  interpretation  (especially  as  connected  with  jSanri^^u)  si^)  is 
vindicated  b}'^  the  Syriac  Version. 

Dr.  Murdock,  translator  of  the  S^'riac  New  Testament,  after  ad- 
ducing the  definitions  from  the  lexicons  of  Buxtorf,  Chal.  Talmud. 
et  Rabbinicum,  Freytag,  Arabico-Latinum,  Castell,  TIeptaglot., 
and  Schindler,  Pentaglotton,  says  (Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Oct.  1850): 
"  This  mass  of  evidence  seems  to  prove,  beyond  all  controversy, 
that  the  primary  meaning  of  the  Syriac  word  was,  to  stand,  stand 
up,  stand  firm,  etc.  The  Syrian  Christians  in  appropriating  this 
verb  to  denote  the  reception  of  baptism,  did  not  change  entirely 
the  radical  idea  attached  to  it.  They  only  transferred  it  from  a 
physical  to  a  metaphorical  sense,  or  used  it  to  denote  a  mental 
and  not  a  bodily  act.  The  proof  lies  in  the  fact,  that  they  re- 
tained perfectly  its  grammatical  character  and  its  syntactical  con- 
struction. .  .  .  But  what  is  the  analogy  between  the  physical  act 
of  standing,  standing  up,  standing  firm,  etc.,  and  the  religious 
act  of  receiving  baptism  ?  This  is  the  great  problem  which  we 
must  attempt  to  solve.  .  .  .  Our  theory  would  be,  that  the  early 
Syrian  Christians, — in  conformity,  very  probably,  with  Apostolic 
example  and  usage, — employed  this  word  to  denote  the  reception 
of  baptism,  because  the}'  associated  with  that  act  the  idea  o^  com- 
ing to  a  stand,  or  oi  taking  a  public  and  decisive  stand  on  the  side 
of  Christianit3\  They  considered  all  baptized  persons  as  estab- 
lished in  the  Christian  faith,  and  as  having  made  a  public  profes- 
sion of  that  faith,  in  and  by  their  baptism,  sO  that  now  they  stood 
up  before  the  world  as  professed  or  visible  Christians.  Accord- 
ing to  this  idea  of  the  latent  or  etymological  meaning  of  the  term, 
the  Commission  of  our  Lord  to  his  Apostles,  in  Matt.  28:  19, 
might  be  rendered, — not,  '  Go  ye  and  teach  all  nations,  immers- 


464  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

mg  (or  washing)  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  as  in  the  Greek ; — but,  '  Go  ye  and 
teach  all  nations,  making  them  to  stand  fast  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,'  etc.  And  the  declaration  in  the  parallel  passage  in 
Mark  16:15,  16,  which  in  the  Greek  reads,  '  Go  y&  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature  :  he  that  believeth 
and  is  immersed  shall  be  saved ;'  would  in  the  Syriac  read,  '  He 
that  believeth  and  standeth  fast  shall  be  saved.'  According  to 
the  Greek,  our  Lord  seems  to  state  two  conditions  of  salvation  ; 
namely,  believing,  and  being  immersed  or  ivashed  in  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Trinity  ;  but  according  to  the  Syriac,  he  states  in  reality 
onl}'  one  condition,  namel}^,  that  of  believing  and  standing  fast  in 
our  confidence  in  the  Triune  God.  Such  views  of  these  texts  are 
in  perfect  harmony  with  the  doctrine  everywhere  inculcated  in 
the  New  Testament,  that  it  is  only  the  steadfast  and  persevering 
Christian  that  will  be  saved. 

"  Comparing  now  this  Sja-iac  word  for  baptism  with  the  Greek, 
we  shall  see,  that  while  the  Greek  word  indicates  the  great  change 
of  character  and  life  requisite  to  salvation,  by  the  figui-e  of  a 
moral  purification;  the  Syriac  word  indicates  the  same  great 
change,  by  the  figui'e  or  metaphor  of  standing  firm  in  the  faith, 
or  standing  up  before  the  world  as  one  of  those  who  follow  Christ, 
or  who  love  and  obey  the  Gospel." 

Prof.  Ewing,  of  Glasgow,  says:  "In  this  translation  (Peshito 
Syriac),  all  the  words  used  for  baptizing,  baptism,  and  Baptist^ 
are  taken  from  the  Hebrew  word  which  signifies  to  stand,  to  cause 
or  make  to  stand,  to  support  as  by  a  pillar,  to  establish,  etc.  It  is 
the  same  word,  also,  which  is  used  in  the  Ai'abic  version  for  bap- 
tism. This  word  is  certainly  worthy  of  particular  attention  in 
the  present  inquiry,  because  in  the  Syro-Chaldaic  dialect,  it  was 
in  all  probability  the  very  word  used  by  ,John  the  Baptist ;  the 
very  word  used  by  Jesus  when  he  gave  the  Apostolic  Commis- 
sion ;  the  very  word  used  by  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  as 
long  at  least  as  they  preached  and  baptized  in  Judea,  Galilee,  and 
Samaria." 

Prof  Stuart  says  :  "  This  Version  is  the  oldest  of  all  the  trans- 
lations of  the  New  Testament  that  are  extant.  It  is  admitted  to 
be  one  of  the  most  faithful  of  all  the  ancient  versions. 

"  How  does  this  translate  the  word  in  question  ?  Only  and 
always  by  a  word  which  corresponds  (in  point  of  form)  to  the 
Hebrew,  Chaldee,  and  Arabic  word,  agreeing  in  sense  with  the 


SYRIAC    VERSION.  465 

Latin,  stare,  perstare,  fulcire,  rohorare.  It  is  hardly  credible 
that  the  Syriac  could  so  far  vary  from  all  these  languages  as  prop- 
erly to  mean,  immerse,  dip,  etc. 

"  We  come  almost  necessarily,  then,  to  the  conclusion,  inas- 
much as  the  Syriac  has  an  appropriate  word  which  signifies  to 
dip,  plunge,  immerse,  etc.,  and  yet  it  is  never  employed  in  the 
Peshito,  that  the  translator  did  not  deem  it  important  to  desig- 
nate any  particular  mode  of  baptism,  but  only  to  designate  the 
rite  by  a  term  which  evidently  appears  to  mean,  confirm,  estab- 
lish, etc." 

The  facts  thus  presented  vindicate  the  results  reached  in  this 
Inquiry. 

1.  The  usage  of  the  Syriac  word  which  takes  the  place  of  ^an- 
t:'Cw,  and  the  usage  of  the  Greek  word  is  the  same ;  that  is  to  say, 
neither  of  them  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  with  a  physical  ap- 
plication ;  both  are  used  in  metaphorical  relations. 

Dr.  Murdock  says:  "The  Syrian  Christians  transferred  this 
word  from  a  physical  to  a  metaphorical  sense,  or  used  it  to  denote 
a  mental  and  not  a  bodily  act." 

In  thus  turning  a  word  from  the  expression  of  a  physical  con- 
ception to  express  an  analogous  moral  conception,  the  Syrian 
Christians  only  followed  the  example  of  the  inspired  writers  in 
their  use  of  i^anriZoj,  which  is  never  used  by  them  in  physical  re- 
lations, but  is  invariably  used  in  ideal  relations  for  the  purpose 
of  developing  moral  conditions  analogous  to  the  condition  re- 
sultant from  phj^sical  use. 

2.  While  the  simple  primary  idea  of  the  Syriac  word  {to  stand 
firm,  to  establish)  is  as  diverse  from  the  simple,  primary  idea  of 
the  Greek  word  (to  envelox)  in  a  fiuid  without  limitation  of  time) 
as  could  well  be,  yet,  in  their  results  they  are  brought  into  the 
most  intimate  generic  accord.  An  object  which  is  made  to  stand 
firm,  is  thereby  brought  into  a  condition  by  which  it  is  invested 
with  a  controlling  power,  changing  its  previous  condition,  and  an 
object  which  is  enveloped  by  a  fluid  without  limitation  of  time,  is, 
thereby,  brought  into  a  condition  by  which  it  is  imbued  with  a 
controlling  power  changing  its  previous  condition.  When  such 
words  are  used  metaphorically,  they  harmonize  in  expressing 
(amid  their  variations)  the  same  mental  or  moral  conception, — 
thorough  change  of  condition. 

If  I  wish  to  describe  a  man  truly  and  fully  penitent  or  par- 
doned, it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  I  say :  He  stands 

30 


466  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

firm  or  established  in  repentance — in  the  remission  of  sins ;  or 
whether  I  say:  He  is  baptized  into  (;=  brought  thoroughly  under 
the  controlling  influence  of)  repentance — remission  of  sins.  The 
idea  expressed  as  to  that  aian's  relation  to  repentance,  and  remis- 
sion of  sins,  is  precisel}'  the  same,  whatever  may  be  the  diversity 
of  medium  through  which  the  idea  is  reached. 

So,  if  I  wish  to  express  the  relation  of  a  soul  to  Christ,  or  to 
the  Triune  God,  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  I  say,  the 
soul  stands  firm  in  Christ — is  established  in  the  Name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  or,  whether  I 
say,  the  soul  is  baptized  into  (^brought  thoroughly  under  the 
controlling  influence  of)  Christ — the  Name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Hol}^  Ghost.  The  relation  declared  to 
exist  in  the  one  case  or  in  the  other,  is  identically  the  same.  The 
form  onl3^,  under  which  the  conception  is  presented,  differs.  It 
is  then  an  unquestionable  truth,  that  the  stand  firm  of  the  Syriac, 
and  the  baptize  into  of  the  Greek,  are  truly  equivalent  and  justl}'^ 
interchangeable  expressions. 

3.  The  idea,  that  ^aizriXu)  has  any  complementary  relation  with 
water  in  the  New  Testament,  or  has  any  concern  in  the  mode  of 
using  the  water  in  ritual  baptism,  is  foundationless.  The  mode 
of  baptism  (so  far  as  this  word  is  concerned)  passes  forever  out 
of,  and  should  never  have  entered  into,  the  field  of  theological 
controversy.     It  never  did  until  yesterday  when  the  theory  arose. 

Confirmation. 

The  right  and  the  accuracy  of  the  Syriac  translator  in  employ- 
ing a  word  meaning  to  stand  firm .,  establish^  to  represent  [iaTzri'^u) 
eh,  is  strikingly  indicated  in  the  use  of /Jarrt^w  eic,  bj'-the  Apostle 
Paul  to  represent  the  Hebrew  ^P^. 

•  The  meaning  assigned  to  this  word  by  Gesenius  is,  to  prop,  to 
stay,  to  siipport,  to  lean  upon,  and,  metaphorically',  to  trust,  to  con- 
fide, to  believe,  and  to  stand  firm.  A  derivative  from  this  Hebrew 
word,  as,  also,  a  derivative  from  the  Syriac  word,  means  a  pillar. 
And  this  is  equally  natural  as  a  derivative  from  the  Hebrew  to 
support,  and  from  the  Syriac  to  stand  firm.  It  is  obvious,  that  a 
very  close  relation  exists  between  these  words  in  their  primar}' 
use  in  physical  applications,  while  in  their  development  in  met- 
aphorical use  and  in  their  derivatives,  they  become  still  more 
closely  related,  and   even    identical    in    meaning.     If  now,  the 


SYRIAC    VERSION.  467 

Syriac  word  could  be  properly  used  as  an  equivalent  for  the 
Greek,  as  is  done  in  the  Peshito,  we  might  conclude  that  the 
Hebrew  word  could,  with  no  less  propriety  in  proper  circum- 
stances, be  represented  by  the  Greek,  as  its  equivalent.  And  this 
will  be  found  to  be  the  case  by  a  comparison  of  Exodus  14  :  31,  in 
which  the  Hebrew  declares,  literally,  "Israel  leaned  upon  Moses," 
or  metaphorically,  "  Israel  trusted  in,  believed  in  Moses,"  and  1 
Cor.  10:2,  where  Paul  says  of  the  same  transaction,  and  very 
probably  with  a  design  to  express  this  very  word  by  an  equivalent 
phrase,  "  Israel  was  baptized  into  (=  brought  under  the  control- 
ling influence  of)  Moses." 

Can  any  one  possibly  doubt,  that  the  phraseology  of  Moses 
and  of  Paul  (however  diverse  in  their  original  primary  applica- 
tion) does,  as  here  used,  express,  with  equal  accurac}',  the  rela- 
tion of'  Israel  to  Moses,  in  consequence  of  the  miraculous  power 
of  Jehovah  exerted  in  their  behalf?  Paul  no  more  dips  Israel 
into  the  Red  Sea  by  [iar^ziXw,  than  does  Moses  dip  them  by  'P^. 
But  Paul  and  Moses,  equally,  bring  Israel  under  the  controlling 
influence  of  Moses. 

This  usage  of  Paul,  and  this  usage  of  the  Peshito,  mutually 
expound  and  sustain  each  other.  The  Syriac  translator  employs 
a  word  (very  diverse  in  its  original  use),  as,  in  its  outworkings, 
the  just  equivalent  of  ftanriZu*  in  its  New  Testament  use  ;  and  Paul 
employs  ^aTTTi^w  dq  as  the  just  equivalent  of  a  Hebrew  word 
closely  touching  (in  its  original  meaning  and  development)  the 
Syriac  word  of  the  Peshito. 

Dr.  Murdock  claims  a  divine  authority  for  the  Syriac  word  (as 
used  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles)  as  well  as  for  the  Greek  word  ; 
and  here  again,  by  Paul's  translation  {ad  sensuni  if  not  ad  ver- 
bum)  or  substitution,  if  it  be  preferred,  we  come  upon  inspira- 
tion as  authorizing  the  interchange  of  a  related  Hebrew  word  with 
the  Greek  jSaTZTtZuj,  where  the  Hebrew  word  (whether  in  primarj^, 
or  in  secondary,  or  in  any  other  use)  has  not  the  remotest  ap- 
proach to  a  dipping,  or  a  plunging,  or  an  immersing.  It  is  there- 
fore demonstrably  certain,  on  divine  authority,  that  [ia-riZuj  in  the 
New  Testament  does  not  mean  to  dip,  or  to  plunge,  or  to  immerse 
in  water.  This  remarkable  usage  of  the  Peshito  and  of  Paul 
unites  with  the  grammatical  construction  of  the  Greek  verb  in  the 
New  Testament  (which  is  always  with  an  ideal  element  as  its 
complement),  as  well  as  with  the  primary  use  of  this  Greek  word 
(which  envelops  in  a  fluid  without  taking  out),  in  establishing  fully 


468  CHRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

and  firmly,  that  the  baptism  of  the  New  Testament  cannot  be 
physical,  and  must  be  spiritual,  with  an  attending  rite  wherein 
pure  water  symbolizes  the  purifying  nature  of  the  spiritual  bap- 
tism, which  is  verbally  announced — "  into  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus;"  or  its  consequent,  ultimate,  and  eternal  baptism  "into 
the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

This  conclusion  rests  on  no  specialty  for  its  application  to  the 
cases  in  the  New  Testament.  Its  basis  is  of  universal  application 
to  all  cases  of  like  construction,  out  of  the  New  Testament  as  well 
as  in  it. 

Whether  I  say:  "  He  is  baptized  into  (=  under  the  controlling 
influence  of)  sleep ; "  or,  "  He  stands  firm,  is  established,  con- 
firmed in  sleep,"  I  sa}'  substantially  the  same  thing.  If  I  say: 
"He  is,  by  wine,  baptized  into  (under  the  controlling  influence  of) 
insensibility ; "  or,  "  He  stands  firm,  is  established,  confirmed,  in 
insensibility;"  I  say,  substantially,  the  same  thing.  If  I  say: 
"  He  is,  by  a  drug,  baptized  into  (=  under  the  controlling  in- 
fluence of)  stupor;"  or  "He  stands  firm,  is  established,  con- 
firmed, in  stupor ; "  I  say,  substantially',  the  same  thing.  If  I 
say,  "He  is,  by  immoral  teaching,  baptized  into  (=  under  the  con- 
trolling influence  of)  fornication ;"  or,  "He  stands  firm,  estab- 
lished, confirmed  b}'  immoral  teaching,  in  fornication;"  I  change 
the  word,  but  I  do  not  change  the  sentiment. 

And  now,  unless  some  essential  evidence  has  been  omitted,  or 
unless  some  essential  error  has  entered  into  that  adduced,  the 
conclusion  is'  celtain  and  imperative,  that  there  is  no  baptism,  or 
quasi  baptism  by  dipping  into  water,  known  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

In  Brief. 

All  the  elements  which  enter  into  this  great  Commission  and 
last  words  of  our  Divine  Lord,  as  he  is  about  to  step  from  his 
footstool  to  his  throne,  have  now  (as  I  have  been  able  to  appre- 
liend  them)  been  considered. 

This  b:ii)tism  has  been  considered  last ;  because  it  is  announced 
in  the  last  words  of  our  blessed  Redeemer  and  is  last  in  logical 
order,  and  must  be  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  last  in  fact,  as 
it  is  the  baptism  o{  the  redeemed  into  the  Name  of  the  Father  who 
gave  iiis  Son,  and  of  the  Son  who  became  the  incarnate  Redeemer, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  who  seals  with  atoning  blood  the  soul-fruit 
of  a  Saviour's  soul-travail,  and  thus  baptizes  into  the  absolute 
Tri-Une  God  for  all  eternity! 


BAPTISM    INTO    THE    NAME    OF    THE    TRIUNE   GOD.       469 

This  baptism  will  be  the  last,  because  it  will  have  no  end.  No 
baptism  is  self-ending ;  therefore  no  baptism  is  a  dipping.  This 
baptism  is  effected  by  Divine  power  as  well  as  by  Divine  grace. 
As  this  baptism  is  not  self-ending,  so,  no  enemy  can  take  out  of 
this  baptism — "  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life ;  and  they  shall 
never  perish,  neither  shall  any  man  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand. 
My  Father  which  gave  them  me,  is  greater  than  all ;  and  no  man 
is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  my  Father's  hand.  I  and  my  Father 
are  one.  ...  I  pray  for  them.  Holy  Father,  keep  in  thy  Name 
(iv  ruj  ovofxarc)  thosc  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be 
one  as  we  are."  And  who  are  in  this  Name  but  they  who  are 
"  baptized  into  the  Name  (si<;  to  ovoiia)  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost"? 

This  is  the  last,  consummating  baptism  of  redemption.  It  is 
the  amazing  residual  fruit  of  a  Saviour's  baptism  into  death.  It 
is  a  baptism  forever,  even  FOitEVER  and  ever. 

And  for  this  baptism,  which  is  through  the  atoning  death  of 
the  incarnate  Son,  Glory  be  unto  thy  Name,  0  Thou  Triune 
God — the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  world  without 
end,  Amen  and  Amen. 


PATRISTIC  BAPTISM. 


CHEISTIC  BAPTISM  AS  EXHIBITED  IN  THE  TRUTH  AND 
ERROR  OF  PATRISTIC  WRITERS. 


Misinterpretation  of  Matthew  3:11  and  John  3 :  5. 


(471  ) 


PATRISTIC  BAPTISM. 


PATRISTIC   USAGE   OF  ^anri^u}   IN   GENERAL. 

Agreement  with  the  usage  of  other  writings. 

Patristic  writings  furnish  superabundant  materials  for  deter- 
mining tlie  meaning  of  BaTtri^io  within  the  range  of  their  use  of 
this  word.  The  records  are  ample ;  the  use  of  the  word  occurs 
times  without  number ;  the  authors  were  Greeks  by  birth  or  train- 
ing, or  if  of  Roman  birth  and  speech  had  the  best  opportunities 
for  knowing  the  force  and  meaning  of  ecclesiastical  terms  de- 
rived from  the  Greek. 

As  Jewish  writers  employed  this  word  in  the  ordinary  Classic 
sense  and  applications,  as  well  as  to  their  distinctive  religious 
rites,  with  a  meaning  modified  by  the  nature  of  those  rites,  so, 
early  Christian  writers,  in  like  manner,  use  this  word  in  its  ordi- 
nary Classic  sense  when  employed  within  the  same  sphere,  but  in 
a  modified  sense  when  applied  to  express  religious  rites  and  doc- 
trines which  were  diverse  in  conception  alike  from  Classic  and 
from  Jewish  thought. 

This  modified  application  and  usage,  however,  whether  Jewish 
or  Christian,  is  in  the  most  perfect  harmony  with  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  word  and  the  development  of  such  meaning  under 
the  laws  of  language.  Inasmuch  as  the  Greek  usage  of  these 
writers  is  of  the  highest  authority,  and  in  its  breadth  covers 
alike  Classic,  Jewish,  and  Inspired  usage  over  which  we  have 
now  passed,  it  may  be  well,  in  order  to  compare  and  to  test  the 
results  reached  with  those  about  to  be  developed,  to  state  briefly 
what  those  results  are.  We  have  found  Classic  writers  employ- 
ing this  word,  solely  with  a  secular  application,  1.  To  express  a 
thoroughly  changed  condition  of  its  object  by  causing  it  to  oc- 
cupy a  covered  condition  within,  commonly,  a  fluid  or  semi-fluid, 

(473) 


474  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

having  no  regard  to  the  act  by  which  such  changed  condition  is 
effected,  and  without  limitation  of  tlie  time  during  which  it  is  to 
continue.  The  primary  result  of  such  changed  condition,  namely, 
envelopment  by  a  fluid  without  limitation  of  time,  necessarily  re- 
sults in  an  ulterior  change,  namely,  subjection  to  the  fullest 
measure  of  influence  which  the  inclosing  fluid  is  capable  of  ex- 
erting over  the  inclosed  object  b}'  penetrating  and  pervading  it 
and  thus  assimilating  it  to  its  own  characteristic  whatever  that 
may  be.  This  secondary  change  of  condition  leads,  under  a  well- 
recognized  law  of  language  development,  to  a  modification  of  the 
primary  use  of  the  word  so  that  it  shall  include  cases  in  which 
the  object  undergoes  a  like  change  of  condition,  to  wit,  by  an 
influence  penetrating,  pervading,  and  assimilating,  which  exerts 
its  power  to  produce  this  condition  by  unlike  means,  that  is  to 
sa}"^,  not  by  covering  its  object.  This  extended  usage  of  /SaTrrt'Cw 
is  abundantly  illustrated  in  Classic  writers.  It  is  so  in  those  fre- 
quent cases  where  it  is  used  to  express  the  thoroughlj^  changed 
condition  of  a  drunken  man  under  the  penetrating,  pervading, 
and  assimilating  influence  of  the  intoxicating  principle  of  wine. 
This  same  use  employs  this  word  to  express  the  thoroughly 
changed  condition  of  a  man  in  profound  stupor  effected  by  the 
penetrating,  pervading,  and  assimilating  influence  proceeding 
from  some  tw  fapim/.u).  These  and  many  other  changes  of  condi- 
tion are  effected  by  diverse  modes  of  operation  in  the  cause,  but 
belonging  to  the  same  class  of  conditions,  namely,  as  character- 
ized by  a  thorough  change  assimilating  to  the  characteristic  of 
the  operating  influence  they  are  designated  by  the  same  word, — 
l^anzi^u).  This  word  is  also  used  absolutely  by  the  Classics  to  ex- 
press a  drunken  condition. 

Jewish  writers,  like  the  Classics,  employ  Par.ri'^w  to  express  a 
covered  condition,  by  any  act,  without  limitation  of  time  ;  a  thor- 
oughl}'  changed  condition  effected  otherwise  than  by  covering,  and 
absolutely,  to  express  a  thoroughly  changed  condition  effected  by 
religious  rites  without  regard  to  the  manner  of  using  those  rites. 

Inspired  writers  never  use  y5«rrj'^<w  to  express  the  physical  cov- 
ering of  its  ol)ject.  Nor  is  it  ever  used  b}'  them  except  within  a 
religious  sphere  and  ordinarily  relating  to  a  thoroughl}?^  changed 
spiritual  condition,  the  nature  of  which  is  commonly  expressed  by 
the  conjunction  of  the  verb  with  an  ideal  element  into  which  the 
object  is  represented  as  passing  by  the  preposition  eh^. 

Sometimes,  however,  no  ideal  element  is  expressed,  but  the  na- 


PATRISTIC    USAGE    OF    BanTi!:^.  475 

ture  of  the  changed  condition  is  expressed  only  by  the  agency  in 
the  Dative,  as  is  often  done  by  Classic  writers.  More  rarel}'' 
there  is  an  absolute  use  of  the  word  when  (as  designed)  we  are 
only  informed  that  some  thorough  change  of  condition  is  to  take 
place  but  its  precise  nature  is  not  expressed.  It  is  only  by  the 
adjunct  ideal  element  in  the  Accusative  with  ££?,  or  by  the  agency 
in  the  Dative,  with  or  without  a  preposition,  that  we  know  the 
nature  of  the  baptism  of  Inspiration. 

Patristic  writers  will  be  found  to  present  cases  of  all  the  varied 
forms  of  usage  found  among  Classic,  Jewish,  and  Inspired  writers. 

Disagreement. 

While  there  is  no  difference  between  Patristic  writers  and 
others  as  to  the  essential  nature  and  varied  usage  of  fiaKzi^w^ 
there  is  essential  difference  from  Inspired  writers,  in  various  as- 
i:)ects,  in  relation  to  Christian  Baptism.  Among  these  differences 
may  be  mentioned,  1.  The  confusion  and  unification  of  the  di- 
verse agencies  Water  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  they  are 
made  coactive  in  effecting  an  exclusively  spiritual  baptism,  and 
the  symbol  baptism  of  Scripture  by  pure  water  is  destroyed ;  2. 
The  introduction  of  a  symbol  burial  into  the  use  of  the  water,  as 
ordinarily  administered,  of  which  the  Scriptures  know  nothing; 
3.  The  covering  of  the  head  three  times  in  the  Avater  in  corre- 
spondence with  the  three  Persons  in  the  Trinity,  or  with  the  three 
days  and  nights  of  Christ's  burial ;  4.  The  divesting  of  all  can- 
didates for  baptism  (male  and  female)  of  their  entire  clothing; 
5.  The  practice  of  exorcism,  the  turning  toward  the  west  and 
the  east,  the  use  of  oil,  salt,  spittle,  etc.  These  departures  from 
Scripture  teaching  and  practice  were  vindicated  as  Scriptural  by 
appeals  to  passages  misinterpreted  or  misapplied,  among  which 
the  most  important  were  Matt.  3:11;  John  3:5;  and  Rom.  6  : 3. 

This  agreement  and  disagreement  will  now  be  illustrated  by 
the  citation  of  passages  reaching  from  the  first  into  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, within  which  period  the  most  authoritative  writings  are 
found.     Our  first  inquiry  will  be  as  to  the  usage  of  the  verb. 

PATRISTIC   USAGE    OP   PaTtriZio. 

Intusposition  without  limitation  of  act  or  time. 
It  is  in  proof:  That  (iaizriZo)  demands  for  its  object  a  condition 
of  intusposition  (usually  within  a  fluid  element)  without  regard 


\ 


476  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

to  the  act  to  be  used  in  secaring  such  intusposition,  and  without 
limitation  to  the  time  of  continuing  in  such  condition ;  never 
taking  out  what  it  puts  in. 

Corollary:  1.  A  baptized  object  is  subjected  to  the  fullest  as- 
similative influence  of  the  investing  medium,  by  the  interpenetra- 
tion  and  communication  of  its  characteristic. 

2.  An  object  which  has  received  a  pervading  and  assimilating 
influence,  in  any  way,  may  be  said  to  be  baptized  by  such  in- 
fluence. 

This  truth,  with  its  corollaries  (proved  from  other  writings) 
will  now  be  shown  to  be  accepted  as  truth  by  Patristic  writers. 

Classic  and  Patristic  iSar.TiZw  the  same. 

1.  Clemens  Alex,  (posterior):  "B}' means  of  which  the  ship 
about  to  be  baptized  (jSartTiXo/ji^r])  is  raised  up." 

2.  Basil  M.,  Ill,  432  :  "  A  ship  while  it  bears  its  freight  load, 
floats ;  but  more  than  this  (xaTafia-Krc^si)  baptizes  it." 

3.  Basil  M.,  Ill,  452:  "More  wretched  than  they  whom,  in  a 
sea  storm,  wave  after  wave,  tossing  and  baptizing  {iru[iar.Ti'^<r^ra)^ 
prevents  deliverance  from  the  flood." 

This  (ianruw  of  Clement  and  Basil  is  the  identical  primary  and 
literal  jUar^-i'^m  of  the  Classics.  It  secures  intusposition  for  its 
object  in  the  depths  of  the  sea  or  somewhere  else,  and  leaves  it 
there.  The  baptizing  of  the  theory,  which  dips  the  head  and 
shoulders  taking  them  out  in  a  moment,  is  not  much  like  this 
shipwreck  baptizing  of  Classics  and  Patrists  which  continues 
through  a  thousand  years.  The  doctrine  (maintained  against  all 
Lexicons)  that  this  word  has  but  one  meaning,  does  not  allow  of 
any  departure  from  this  primary  use ;  while  its  conversion  into 
a  momentary  into  and  out  of  ivater  eviscerates  it  of  its  entire  life. 

The  (3aizTiX(o  of  Clement  and  Basil  is  the  fta-ri^w  of  Josephus 
and  Philo,  and  of  Plutarch  and  Plato ;  always  a  word  of  power, 
thoroughly  changing  condition  as  grounded  in  intusposition 
within  a  fluid  without  limitation  of  time ;  yet,  in  development 
laying  aside  physical  intusposition  for  ideal ;  and  ideal  for  a  di- 
rect expression  of  changed  condition  by  the  verb  and  influential 
agency  without  intusposition  real  or  imaginary  ;  and  finally,  by 
the  absolute  use  of  the  word  without  adjunct  directly  expressing 
some  complete,  specific,  change  of  condition. 


ANALOGOUS    WORDS.  477 


Ideal  Element. 


Clemens  Alex,  {prior)  421  :  "  und  iiidi^q  [iannZoiJ-svoq  ei^  unvov 
Baptized  by  drunkenness  into  sleep."  This  learned  Christian 
Greek  here  uses  (ianriZu)  in  all  its  Classic  value  and  power  ex- 
pressing thorough  change  of  condition  ;  but  substitutes  an  ideal 
element  (e^'c  vmov)  for  the  Classic  physical  element  {dq  Odlaaaav). 
There  is  no  change  in  the  value  of  the  verb  ;  the  difference  of 
value  in  the  phrases  is  found  solely  in  ei"?  ut.mov  and  e^V  OdXacsaav. 
An  object  which  is  really  placed  dq,  Oa.Xa<r<rav  into  the  sea,  for  an 
unlimited  time,  is  thoroughly  subjected  to  the  influence  of  the  sea; 
and  a  human  being  ideally  passing  into  sleep  is  represented  as 
being  thoroughly  subject  to  the  influe;ice  of  sleep.  And  this 
thorouglily  changed  condition  of  a  profoundlj'^  sleeping  man, 
Clement  says,  is  a  baptism.  There  is  no  actual  or  possible  intus- 
position  (much  less  a  dipping)  ;  but  merely  a  verbal  form  sug- 
gestive of  the  profoundest  influence  to  which  a  specific  character 
is  given  b^^  the  regimen  of  the  preposition.  A  perfectly'  identical 
case  is  that  of  Josephus  (Jew.  Antiq.,  X,  9):  ^'-  BefiaKZL^ixivov  dq 
avaia0ri<7ia\)  xai  umov  utzo  rrjq  fj.iOrjq  Baptized  into  insensibility  and 
sleep  by  drunkenness."  And  a  perfectly  parallel  case  is  that  of 
Luke  3:3,"  BdnxKriia  /leravotaq  eiq  aipsiTiv  diJ.apri(uv  The  baptism  of 
repentance  into  the  remission  of  sins."  In  each  case  iSa-Kzi^io  and 
jddnrcfffia  present  the  same  element  of  controlling  influence  chang- 
ing condition,  while  the  widely  differing  nature  of  the  influences  is 
presented  in  di^unkenness  on  the  one  hand  and  repentance  on  the 
other.  The  resultant  conditions  (insensibility  and  remission  of 
sins)  being  as  diverse  in  nature  as  the  influences  (drunkenness 
and  repentance)  are  diverse  in  character. 

Analogous  Words. 

The  usage  of  analogous  words  by  Patristic  writers  confirms 
these  views. 

Clemens,  Rom.  I,  620  :  "  Oure  yap  tov  Nd>e  xaxiylonev — He  did 
not  deluge  Noah." 

Basil  M.,  Ill,  453  :  "  KaTaxXuZ,6iJ.evov  rrj  ApsTpia  rou  oivnu — Deluged 
by  wine  without  measure." 

Clemens,  Rom.  I,  1464:  '■^  MdXXov  di  ujq  adru).  X-r^poixn  jSuOcffOivra — 
Or,  as  they  madly  say,  he  was  drowned  (abyssed)." 


478  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Marci  EreraitcTe,  1020:  ^^  Ei^  rm  jSuOov  ty/Z  ayvolai:;  y.araTzir^Tiuy.tv — 
Fallen  into  the  abyss  of  ignorance." 

Oiigen,  II,  1511:   "The  tempest  (^/.arzTJivri^t)  has  ingulfed  me." 

Matt.  18:  6:  "And  {yMTanovnaOr^  ingulfed  in  the  depth  of  the 
sea." 

Kara/.h')%o>^  l^u6c!^(o^  xarano'^rt'Ciu^  like  fiaizriZo)^  demand  intusposition" 
for  their  objects  without  limitation  of  time  (do  not  take  out  what 
they  put  in),  and  therefore,  all  such  objects  are  of  necessity  ex- 
posed to  the  full  influence  of  the  investing  element.  Such  verbs 
are  adapted  to  expi'ess  the  development  of  influence,  of  an  analo- 
gous character,  when  such  development  does  not  take  place  by 
the  same  form  of  influence;  that  is  to  say,  they  drop  entirely  the 
idea  of  a  physical  covering  or  only  suggestively  allude  to  it. 

Thus  we  see,  that  influence  of  the  most  powerful  character  is 
necessarily  included  in  the  case  of  Noah's  cataclysm.  Noah  and 
his  family  were  not  "  deluged  ;"  therefore  did  not  experience  the 
drowning  influence  of  water.  The  rest  of  the  human  race  were 
"deluged,"  and  by  necessity  of  such  intusposition,  were  drowned. 
Now,  this  resultant  effect  (complete  influence,  not  the  intuspo- 
sition causative  of  the  influence)  is  expressed  by  Basil  through 
y.aTay.}.hZw  in  declaring  the  controlling  influence  of  wine.  He 
neither  means  to  sa}',  that  the  wine  bibber  is  within  a  deluge  of 
waters,  nor  within  a  deluge  of  wine  ;  but  he  uses  a  word  (which 
while  not  expressing  influence  in  primary  use,  yet  necessarily  in- 
volves the  highest  influence)  to  express  in  secondary  use  the 
highest  influence  of  wine,  which  is  developed  not  by  intusposition 
but  by  drinking;  which  does  not  drown  but  makes  drunk.  Noah 
was  not  covered  over  {y.aTa/lu%u})  in  the  deluge ;  but,  alas,  Noah 
was  made  drunk  (xaraxXo^to)  Ity  wine.  Who  will  question  a  di- 
versity of  meaning  in  this  twofold  usage  of  the  same  word?  In 
the  first  case  we  have  inness  with  influence;  and  in  the  second 
case  we  have  the  influence  (peculiar  to  wine  when  drunk)  without 
the  inness  ;  which  could  not  develop  the  intoxicating  influence  of 
wine. 

Clemens  Komanus  uses  [iuOiZot^  in  like  manner,  jiriniarily,  to 
express  the  covering  in  water  (which  in  the  case  of  a  human 
being  is  necessarily  attended  with  a  destructive  influence),  while 
Mark  the  Hermit  uses  its  root  ideally  (et-r  rdv  fiuSm),  not  to  ex- 
press witliinness  but  to  suggest  the  profoundest  influence  of 
"  ignorance." 

Origen  uses  zara-nyrj^w,  which  primarily  covers  in  the  sea  with- 


IDEAL    ELEMENT    AND    OTHER    WORDS.  479 

out  limit  of  time,  to  express  not  a  covered  condition  in  the  sea, 
but  the  influence  of  overwhehning  distress.  The  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  (Matt.  18:6)  uses  this  same  zara-ovri'Cw  to  bring  out  the 
hopeless  destruction  which  is  inseparable  from  this  word,  apply- 
ing it  to  the  soul  and  the  remediless  influence  of  sin. 

The  general  primar}'  meaning  of  /Sa-rc'^w  (covering  without 
limitation  of  act  or  time)  is  the  same  as  that  of  -/.azavlo^u)^  [iod>Xu)^ 
y.ara-Kiivri'liu ;  and,  in  the  case  of  each,  controlling  influence  is  in- 
separable from  such  condition,  and  is  directly  expressed  in  second- 
ary use. 

Ideal  Element  and  other  Words. 

As  there  is  no  characteristic  of  ,?arrrjt«>  so  important  as  that  of 
inness  without  limitation  of  time,  so  there  is  no  usage  of  this  woi'd 
of  such  vital  importance  to  this  Inquiry  as  that  which  connects  it 
with  an  ideal  element,  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  controlling 
influence,  while  indicating  by  the  form  the  origin  of  such  meaning. 
It  is  important,  therefore,  to  show  that  this  usage  is  not  singular, 
but  common;  that  it  is  not  obscure,  but  clear  in  meaning;  that  it 
is  not  difficult  of  interpretation,  but  facile  and  of  universal  con- 
sent. Let  us,  then,  before  entering  upon  that  of  /Jct-rj'^w,  look  at 
the  facts  of  Patristic  usage  in  connection  with  other  words. 

Clem.  Rom.  {op.  dub.)  472 :  "  The  disciples  and  hearers  of  an 
untaught  and  ignorant  teacher  overwhelmed  by  the  darkness  of 
ignorance  (i7i  interitum  demergentur)  will  be  demersed  into  de- 
struction." 

S.  Clementis  {op.  dub.)  II,  332 :  "  Lest  by  much  sudden  joy 
she  should  come  (sk  k'/.a-aacy  (ppzvih'j)  into  distraction  op  mind." 

Tertullian  I,  629 :  "  While  the  heathen  (in  voluptatibus  im- 
mergunt)  immerse  themselves  in  pleasures." 

Tertullian  I,  663  :  "  The  worshipper  of  idols  is  an  adulterer 
of  the  truth ;  (in  stupro  mergitur)  he  is  mersed  in  adultery." 
II,  1060 :  "  Peccati  in  gurgite  mersis — mersed  in  the  abyss  op  sin." 
1063:  "In  dementia  raersos — mersed  in  folly." 

Tertullian  III,  234 :  "  Darkness  having  been  scattered  (de 
tenebrarum  profundo  in  lucem  sapientise  et  veritatis  emergerem) 
I  emerged  out  of  the  depth  of  darkness  into  the  light  of  wisdom 
and  TRUTH." 

Clemens  Alex.  I,  417  :  "  Reason  should  preside  lest  the  feast 
{izapansaooaa  dc,  ixidrjv)  should  glide  into  DRUNKENNESS." 


480  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Clem.  Alex.  I,  493  :  "  The  oppression  of  sleep  is  like  to  death 

{oTzocptpoiii'^T}  ££?  a'^aiaOriaiav)  carrying  us  clown  into  insensibility." 

Clem.  Alex.  II,  417  :  "  Commanding  the  sinner  {avatpsltrOat  xai 

/lerartOeffOai  t/.  davdrou  eiq  l^wijv)  to  be  raised  up  out  of  death  and 

transposed  info  life." 

AuGUSTiN  IX,  186:  "In  quodlibet  profundum  maloi'um  et  in 
quamlibet  horribilem  voraginem  peccatorum  irruat.  Into  what- 
soever DEPTH  OF  evils  and  into  whatsoever  horrible  abyss  of  sins 
he  may  rush." 

Jerome  VI,  1349 :  "  Qui  in  extremis  peccatorum  foecibus  habi- 
tant et  in  scelerum  suorum  ima  demersi.  Who  live  m  the  ex- 
treme dregs  of  sins  and  demersed'  into  the  lowest  depths  of  their 
crimes." 

These  passages  are  sufficient  to  illustrate  the  familiar  employ- 
ment by  Patristic  writers  of  an  ideal  element  with  verbally  ex- 
pressed withinness,  in  order  to  denote  controlling  influence.  The 
ground  of  such  usage  evidently  is  :  The  insejjarable  connection 
of  the  highest  influence  which  a  fluid  can  exert  over  an  object, 
with  its  position  within  such  fluid,  for  an  unlimited  time.  Such 
cases  are  the  following : 

Tertullian  11,1071:  "  Hostes  demersit  in  undis.  He  de- 
mersed (=,  drowned)  his  enemies  in  the  waters." 

Origen  II,  844  :  "  Mergatur  in  mare.  Is  mersed  (=  drowned) 
into  the  sea,  flowing  (in  amaritudinem)  into  bitterness."  The 
sweet  water  of  a  river  flowing  into  the  briny  sea  has  its  sweetness 
drowned  in  the  bitter  waters  into  which  it  flows. 

Hilary  I,  353  :  "  Ut  in  profundum  demergantur  oratur — eff"ec- 
tum  cum  illos  diluvio  submersos  consumpsit  profundum.  He 
prays  that  they  may  be  demersed  (r=  drowned)  into  the  deep — 
which  was  done  when  the  deep  destroyed  them  submerged 
(=  drowned)  in  the  flood." 

AuGUSTiN  V  (prior)  382:  "  TJnde  tota  navis  mergatur.  The 
whole  ship  is  mersed  (=  swallowed  up)  by  a  leak." 

Origen  II,  875  :  "  Ire  in  gehennam,  mitti  in  ignem  aeternum, 
expelli  in  tenebras  exteriores.  To  go  into  hell,  to  be  sent  into 
everlasting  fire,  to  be  driven  into  outer  darkness."  The  complete 
influence  of  "hell,"  "fire,"  "darkness,"  is  expressed  by  going 
INTO  them  for  an  unlimited  time.  Nothing  is  more  obvious  than 
the  essential  connection  between  position  within  a  physical  ele- 
ment and  the  completest  influence ;  and  nothing  is  more  certain 
than  tluiL  Patristic  writers  do  use  such  intusposition  not  merely 


USED    WITH    AN    IDEAL    ELEMENT.  481 

for  the  intusposition,  but  for  the  injluence  resulting  therefrom. 
In  like  manner  they  do  abundantly  use  a  verbal  form  expressive 
of  intusposition,  in  order  to  express  the  controlling  injluence  of 
the  characteristic  quality  of  such  ideal  element  over  its  object. 

BoKTiZu)  is  so  used  with  an  Ideal  Element. 

The  use  of  ^anriZu)  is  entirely  harmonious,  and  largely  identical, 
with  that  of  numerous  other  words  employed  to  express  controlling 
influence  through  actual  or  ideal  withinness.  This  has  been  already 
shown  in  connection  with  ships  and  men  sinking  into  the  sea;  the 
ideal  use  is  exemplified  in  the  following  quotation : 

Clemens  Alex.  II,  1212:  "  'E/.  (TuxppoffuvTjq  e.'c  nopvecav  (ianriZouai 
They  baptize  out  of  chastity  into  fornication,  teaching  to  indulge 
in  pleasures  and  passions." 

Any  attempt  to  take  this  passage  out  of  the  same  category  with 
those  already  considered  (as  establishing  controlling  influence 
through  withinness)  will  rouse  up  in  opposition  not  only  the 
established  usage  of  Patristic  writei's,  but  also  a  principle  in 
nature,  z".  e.,  that  withinness  is  causative  of  influence;  and  the 
prima  facie  demand  of  eiq  in  association  with  ^x,  as  well  as  the 
essential  requirement  of  /5a:rT£'Cw.  The  only  interpretation  of  this 
passage  which  admits  of  defence,  is  that  which  makes  vicious 
TEACHING  to  baptize  its  disciples  =  to  cause  them  to  pass  out  of 
a  condition  of  chastity  into  a  condition  of  fornication.  To  pass 
"  into  fornication  "  (baptize  never  takes  out  what  it  puts  in)  can- 
not possibly  express  anything  short  of  or  less  than  full  subjection 
to  the  characteristic  of  this  vice.  This  passage  settles  the  all- 
important  point  that  ftanri^u)  may  (like  scores  of  other  words)  he 
directly  connected  with  an  ideal  element^  and  thereby  express 

THE    CONTROLLING    INFLUENCE    OF     THE    CHARACTERISTIC    OF     SUCH 

ELEMENT  OVER  THE  OBJECT  wMch  (verbally)  is  carried  into  it, 
and  NOT  TAKEN  OUT  OF  IT.  If  any  further  proof  of  this  vital 
point  were  necessaiy,  it  could  be  readily  furnished  from  this  same 
writer.     See  the  following  : 

I,  416 :  "  Reason  should  preside  at  the  feast  lest  it  glide  (ei<; 
niO-qv)  into  drunkenness." 

Will  any  one  question  that  ek  iMiOrjv  is  the  ideal  element  into 
which  (and  therefore  under  the  influence  of  which)  the  convivial- 
ists  are  passing  ? 

31 


482  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

I,  493 :  "The  oppression  of  sleep  is  like  to  death  which  carries 
us  down  (elc  avat<70rj<Tiav)  into  insensibility." 

Is  this  condition,  induced  by  ideal  withinness,  any  less  clear? 

I,  421  :  "  BaT:Tt!^ofxev<)z  vno  !iiOy,q  elq  umov^  Baptized  b}'  drunken- 
ness into  sleep." 

Here  are  the  same  elements  (wine  and  drunkenness,  sleep  and 
insensibility)  under  the  same  grammatical  form,  and  kindred 
ideal  elements  (slq  /jjdrjv,  elq  dvaiaOy^triav^  elq  umov)^  and  are  we  to 
have  a  new  principle  of  interpretation  introduced  and  ftanviZu)  put 
under  ban,  so  that  it  alone  must  not  introduce  its  object  within 
an  ideal  element  as  suggestive  of  controlling  infiuence'?  This 
exclusion  must  be  practiced  or  its  common  right  must  be  ac- 
knowledged. 

The  seal  is  put  to  this  evidence  by  the  important  testimony  of 
Josephus  in  the  passage  often  quoted :  Jewish  Antiq.,  X,  9,  "  Be- 
jSaTzrcrr/iivov  eii;  dvacffOrjffLav  uno  ty^^  tdOfj^  Baptized  into  insensibility 
by  drunkenness ;"  where  complete  influence  is  expressed  by  a 
verbal  passing  into  an  ideal  element  in  a  case  of  worldwide 
familiarity. 

It  is  in  proof:  1.  That  (ianTi'lu)  is  used  in  direct  grammatical  and 
complementary  relation  with  an  ideal  element  in  order  to  develop 
the  peculiar  influence  of  such  element  over  the  object  passing 
(ideally)  into  it ;  2.  That  in  such  ideal  baptism  the  baptizing 
agency  may  be  (in  this  case  wine)  a  physical  fluid  element,  and 
may  be  used  in  any  wa}'  (in  this  case  b^'  drinking)  appropriate  to 
its  nature,  for  the  development  of  its  baptizing  power. 

Bar.ri'^w  with  the  Agency  and  without  Ideal  Element. 

The  baptism  into  an  ideal  element,  for  the  purpose  of  express- 
ing the  full  development  of  the  characteristic  of  such  element 
over  its  object,  finds  a  perfectly  equivalent  baptism  in  another 
verbal  form  in  which  the  ideal  element  disappears,  and  the  agency 
(witliout  the  statement  of  or  anj-  regard  to  the  mode  of  applica- 
tion or  influence)  only  appears  and,  by  its  association  with  /Sarr- 
Tt'Cw,  expresses  both  the  f\\ct  and  the  nature  of  the  controlling 
influence  exerted.     Take  the  following  quotation  in  illustration: 

Clemens  Alex.  I,  57  :  "  The  man  who  is  {iSsiianriatiivoi;  dyvota) 
baptized  by  ignorance  is  more  stupid  than  a  stone." 

Clement  gives  the  explanation  of  his  own  phrase,  "  baptized  hy 
ignorance,"  in  the  most  unmistakable  manner.     He  explains  the 


WITH  THE  AGENCY  AND  WITHOUT  ELEMENT.    483 

phrase  as  indicating  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  most  prof ound 
stupidity.  A  man  "baptized  by  ignorance"  is  moi-e  stupid  than 
A  STONE.  Has  anything  in  nature  less  intelligence  than  "  a 
stone"?  No  ;  but  a  man  "  baptized  by  ignorance"  is  not  a  thing 
of  nature,  but  a  lusus  naturae,  and  therefore,  "  more  stupid  than 
a  stone."  There  is  no  figure  (=  ideal  element)  in  this  phrase. 
The  idea  may  be  expi'essed  through  an  ideal  element,  thus : 

Maroi  Eremite,  1020  :  "  The  soul  (ei<;  rov  ftuOdv  r^?  dyvoiaq  xara- 
TTinrwxev)  has  fallen  into  the  abyss  of  ignorance  or  it  would  know- 
by  divine  Scripture,  etc."  Here,  precisely  the  same  idea  as  ex- 
pressed in  "baptized  by  ignorance"  is  expressed  by  the  use  of 
ignorance  as  an  ideal  element  into  which  the  soul  is  verbally  rep- 
resented as  "  falling,"  and  thus  coming  fully  under  its  influence. 
The  baptism  '■'■into  ignorance"  Mark  expounds,  as  a  condition  of 
stupidity  too  profound  to  recognize  the  plainest  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  while  Clement  expounds  the  baptism  "6^  ignorance,"  as  a 
condition  of  stupidity  which  outvies  that  of  a  senseless  stone. 

Clement  uses  fio.Ttri'^ui  at  the  direct  value  which  it  has  secured 
from  primary  and  figurative  use,  viz.,  as  expressive  of  a  pervad- 
ing and  assimilating  controlling  influence,  separated  from  all 
modal  form,  for  securing  such  influence. 

This  verbal  form — "baptize  by" — used  by  Patristic  writers  to 
express  directly,  without  the  intervention  of  figure,  controlling 
influence,  as  a  secondaiy  meaning  of  ^aKziZw,  is  one  of  the  most 
common  forms  of  usage  among  Classic  writers.     Thus: 

CoNON  L.:  '•'•"Oivuj  ds  TzoXku)  [-iar.Tinaaa  Having  baptized  him  by 
much  wine." 

Clem.  Alex.  I,  416  :  "  Lest  the  feast  glide  (£(<r  jxiOriv)  into  drunk- 
enness." 

The  first  quotation  from  a  Classic  Greek,  uses  the  verb  in  its 
secondary  meaning  and  joined  with  wine  expresses  the  fully  de- 
veloped influence  of  wine  without  figure.  The  second  quotation, 
from  a  Patristic  Greek,  expresses  the  same  influence  by  the  use 
of  drunkenness  as  an  element  into  which  the  wine-drinker  is, 
verball}',  represented  as  passing  and  so  coming  under  the  wine 
influence.  The  two  forms  present  essentially^  diverse  conceptions 
uniting  in  one  common  result. 

Clem.  Alex.  I,  421 :  "  BaTzzd^ofisvaq  dnd  pJOrji;  ei'c  uTTvov  Baptized 
by  drunkenness  into  sleep." 

EvENUS  XV:  "  Ba-ri'^et  S"  umu)  He  baptizes  by  sleep." 

Clement,  here,  uses  sleep  as  an  ideal  element  in  connection 


484  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

with  the  verb,  to  secure  the  idea  of  controlling  influence  by  the 
suggested  withinness;  while  the  Classic  Evenus  drops  the  form 
of  ideal  element  and  adopts  the  equivalent,  but  more  advanced, 
form  of  ^anri^oi  with  the  agency  to  express  directly  the  same  idea, 
namely,  a  condition  of  profound  sleep. 

Achilles  Tatius  II,  31:  " /"tD  Auroj  <papiid/.u}  xaralSa-Kziaat;  Hav- 
ing baptized  her  by  the  same  drug." 

Clem.  Alex.  I,  285  :  "  Sins  are  remitted  {Ttanaviui  (papimxw^  Xnyv/M 
fianrifffiart)  by  one  perfect  drug  (medicine),  spiritual  baptism." 

The  Classic  Greek  and  the  Patristic  Greek  in  these  passages 
uses,  each,  the  same  grammatical  form  (jSaTtrt^uj  and  the  agencj'' 
in  the  Dative)  to  express  the  controlling  influence  of  a  power  des- 
icrnated  by  both  as  a  "  fapixaxovy  But  this  general  term  (taken 
from  the  materia  medica)  represents  agencies  very  diverse  in  their 
characteristic  qualities.  The  same  term  is  applied,  here,  to  cover 
agencies  of  very  diverse  qualities,  and  therefore  effecting  bap- 
tisms very  diverse  in  nature.  The  pharmakon  of  Achilles  effects 
a  baptism  whose  characteristic  condition  is  that  of  profound 
stupor  ;  while  the  pharmakon  of  Clement  effects  a  baptism  whose 
characteristic  condition  is  that  of  absolute  purity. 

The  mode  in  which  these  baptizing  influences  operate  is  as 
diverse  as  that  of  an  opiate  taken  into  the  stomach  by  drinking, 
and  of  a  transforming  spiritual  influence  received  into  the  soul 
by  divine  power. 

This  baptizing  pharmakon  of  the  Classic  Greek  was  a  liquid ; 
but  not  in  the  form  of  a  river  or  a  pool.  It  was  contained  in  a 
wineglass.  But  a  wineglassful  was  enough  thoroughly  to  baptize 
a  fuUgrown  adult. 

This  same  form  for  expressing  a  baptism  (the  verb  with  the 
agenc}'  in  the  Dative)  is  a  common  form  in  the  Scriptures  and 
abounds  among  Patristic  writers,  as  it  is,  also,  the  more  common 
form  among  the  Classics.  It  is  grounded  in  withinness;  but  this 
it  has  wholly  laid  aside  by  entering  into  fellowship  with  agencies 
which  exert  a  pervading,  assimilating,  and  controlling  influence 
without  receiving  their  objects  necessarily  or  possibly  into  with- 
inness of  relation.  Neither  wine  nor  drug  baptizes  by  covering. 
It  will,  also,  be  noticed,  that  while  all  baptisms  under  all  varieties 
of  forms  of  expression  have,  in  common,  a  condition  character- 
ized by  controlling  influence,  the  specific  character  of  that  con- 
dition must  be  learned  from  the  receiving  element  (real  or  ideal) 
on  the  one  hand,  or  from  the  agenc}'  on  the  other. 


WITH    AGENCY    AND    WITHOUT    ELEMENT.  486 

A  fleshless  skeleton  will  as  soon  declare  the  complexion  of  the 
skin  or  the  color  of  the  eyes  of  its  once  living  possessor,  as  the 
naked  ^a-Kxi^iu  will  declare  the  nature  of  a  baptism  without  its 
complementary  adjunct  in  the  form  of  receiving  element  (real  or 
ideal)  or  of  the  executive  agency. 

The  importance  of  this  statement  will  be  appreciated  in  view 
of  the  fact,  that  in  the  Scriptures  there  is  no  baptism  announced 
except  through  an  ideal  element  or  by  a  spiritual  agency,  with  its 
associate  symbol — Water,  dove,  or  firelike  tongue. 

This  has  already  been  shown  to  be  true  of  the  Scriptures.  It 
remains  to  be  shown,  that  it  is  no  less  true,  that  Christian  ha-p- 
tism  is  always  represented  by  Patristic  writers  as  a  Spiritual 
baptism  whose  nature  is  announced^  exclusively,  by  an  ideal  ele- 
ment^ or  by  an  agency  possessed  of  a  correspondent  spiritual 
power,  which  effects  the  baptism. 

But  while  the  baptism  of  tlie  Scripture  and  the  baptism  of  Pa- 
tristic writers  is  alike  spiritual  in  its  nature,  there  is  this  very 
essential  difference,  to  wit :  the  real  baptism  of  the  Scriptures  is 
eff'ected  solely  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  is  ritually  represented  (as 
to  its  purifying  nature)  by  a  symbol  ordinance  in  which  pure 
water  is  applied  to  the  body ;  while  the  Christian  baptism  of  the 
Patrists  is  effected  jointly  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  water,  impreg- 
nated with  a  divine  power.  This  baptism  has  no  symbol  rite 
showing  forth  by  vmter  the  nature  of  the  baptism ;  but  uses  the 
water  (which,  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  effects,  as  they  believe,  the 
real  baptism  of  the  soul)  in  such  manner  as  to  symbolize,  not 
(their)  baptism  but,  (their)  burial  with  Christ  in  his  rock  sepul- 
chre ;  an  idea  which  has  no  place  in  the  ritual  baptism  of  Scrip- 
ture, any  more  than  oil,  and  spittle,  and  insufflation,  etc. 

That  this  is  a  just  representation  of  Patristic  baptism  we  now 
proceed  to  show.  But  before  entering  upon  the  discussion  in  de- 
tail, it  may  be  well  briefly  to  indicate  the  source  of  the  Patristic 
error  by  which  water  became  essentially  conjoined  and  coefficient 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Christian  baptism  (=  the  remission  of 
sins  and  the  regeneration  of  the  soul). 

Judaic  baptism  was  not  a  mere  symbol  baptism  shadowing  some 
other  real  baptism  ;  but  was  a  type  baptism  possessed  of  a  real 
power,  self-efficient  for  the  purification  of  ceremonial  defilement, 
and  hence,  the  adequate  type  of  an  antitype  baptism  which  did 
eflScientl}'  purify  from  spiritual  defilement.  This  truth  (the  self- 
efficiency  of  the  water,  and  blood,  and  heifer  ashes  in  Judaic  bap- 


486  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

tism)  was  erroneously  carried  over  into  the  water  used  in  John^s 
baptism  (which  was  not  a  type  but  a  sj^rabol  baptism)  making  it 
self-efficient  for  a  i^piritual  cleansing  (=i  7-epentance  and  fore- 
shadowed remission  of  sin).  This  idea  of  spiritual  efficiency 
(within  limits)  in  John's  baptism  is  seen  everywhere  in  Patristic 
writings,  and  especially  in  frequent  and  explicit  statements  of 
Augustine,  who  declares  John,  as  personally  possessed  of  such 
power  to  baptize,  to  stand  alone  among  men.  The  baptism  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  declared  by  John — "  He  shall  baptize 
you  with  tlie  Holy  Ghost" — is  made  by  these  writers  to  differ 
from  that  of  John  himself  not  in  nature,  but  only  in  measure. 
They  were  both  spiritual ;  and  thus  both  differed  in  nature  from 
Judaic  baptism,  but  agreed  with  each  other,  in  kind,  while  differ- 
ing in  degree.  The  baptism  of  John  was  imperfect  in  its  spiritual 
power ;  that  of  Christ  was  perfect.  But  while  John  excludes  in 
the  most  pointed  manner  water  from  the  personally  administered 
baptism  of  Christ,  these  writers  include  it,  saying — "  of  cour'se 
John  did  not  mean  to  exclude  water  from  the  baptism  of  Christ 
when  he  says,  '  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Spirit.^ " 
They  failed  to  discriminate  between  the  baptism  through  the  Holy 
Ghost  personally  administered  by  Christ  and  the  rite,  symbolizing 
that  baptism,  administered  by  his  ministers  with  water.  And 
this  error  of  interpretation  was  the  initial  "  letting  out  of  water  " 
which  speedily  became  a  flood,  and  would  have  swallowed  up  the 
Ark  itself  but  for  the  conserving  power  and  grace  of  God.  This 
beginning  of  error  received  large  accession  from  another  misinter- 
pretation of  the  words  of  our  blessed  Lord  himself — (John  3  :  5) 
"  Jesus  answered.  Verily,  verilj-,  I  say  unto  thee.  Except  a  man 
be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God."  These  early  writers  forgetting  (1)  their  own 
doctrine,  that  Jewish  baptism  was  necessary  for  and  had  efficient 
power  in  order  to  cleansing  from  ceremonial  defilement,  and  that 
these  words  were  addressed  to  a  Jew ;  and  (2)  forgetting  also 
their  own  doctrine,  that  Christian  baptism  (=  the  copreseuce 
and  coefficience  of  water  and  the  Spirit)  had  3'et  no  existence, 
and  tlierefore  any  such  doctrine  for  the  instruction  and  personal 
benefit  of  the  Jew  Nicodemus  was  anachronistic ;  and  (3)  for- 
getting further,  that  such  interpretation  dashed  itself  against 
"  the  promise  of  the  Father  "  (Luke  24  :  49)  in  which  there  was 
no  water,  and  against  the  fulfilment  of  that  promise  in  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost  in  which  there  was  no  water,  and 


WITH  AGENCY  AND  WITHOUT  ELEMENT.      487 

against  the  like  fulfilment  at  Coesarea  in  which  there  was  no 
water,  and  against  the  truth  that  "all"  who  are  Christ's  are 
"baptized  by  one  Spirit  into  one  body  "  (I  Cor.  12: 13)  in  which 
there  is  no  water;  and  forgetting  still  further,  that  the  ingrafting 
of  a  rite  upon  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  gives  to  the  water  neither 
essential  copresence  (Cornelius  the  centurion)  nor  coefficience 
(Simon  the  magician),  they  did  yet  magnify  their  first  error  in 
the  minisinterpretation  of  John's  words  {adding  "water"  to 
them)  b}'  a  kindred  misinterpretation  of  Christ's  words,  transfer- 
ring them  from  the  sphere  of  Judaism  in  which  they  were  spoken, 
to  that  of  Christianity  which  was  yet  future,  thus  perpetuating  a 
Jewish  t3'pe  (after  its  extinction  in  the  presence  of  the  antitype 
— the  poured  out  Spirit)  by  the  origination  of  a  coactive  physical 
element  of  which  the  Scriptures  do  not  say  one  syllable. 

This  is  the  double-headed  fons  et  origo  malorum  which  has 
been  pouring  its  poisonous  stream  through  the  church  for  more 
than  a  thousand  years.  How  unutterably  important  is  the  right 
interpretation  of  one  passage  of  Scripture.  What  a  millstone 
has  been  hung  about  the  neck  of  the  church  by  adding  one  word 
(water)  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  What  havoc  is  made 
by  taking  away  one  word  (Christ)  from  the  "one  baptism  "  into 
Christ,  and  adding  to  it  one  word  (water)  transforming  this  di- 
vine baptism  into  Christ  into  the  humanism  of  one  dipping  into 
WATER,  and  thus  disrupting  the  constitution  of  the  church,  reject 
Ing  from  it  the  living  members  of  Christ's  body,  and  writing  upon 
his  holy  sacraments — Baptism  and  Supper — "iyie,"  and  upon  the 
brow  of  all  (except  the  stolidly  ignorant)  who  observe  them  accord- 
ing to  divine  appointment — Liar.* 

For  all  who  so  fearfully  err  (not  an  error  against  man  but 
against  God  in  Christ)  the  prayer  offered  up  on  Calvary  must  live 
in  Heaven — "  Father, /oryiue  them;  they  know  not  what  they  do^ 

*  G.  D.  B.  Pepper,  Prof,  of  Theol.,  Crozer  Theo.  Sem.     (See  pp.  21,  22.) 


BAHTISMA. 


THE  BAirriSMA   OP   PATRISTIC   WRITERS   EXPRESSES  A   SPIRITUAL 
AND    NOT   A   PHYSICAL   EFFECT. 

BaTTTia/ia  is  not  found  in  Classic  Greek.  It  appears  for  the  first 
time  in  the  Scriptures.  The  interpretation  of  its  Patristic  use 
should  be  preceded  by  an  examination  of  its  probable  value  as 
deduced  from  its  derivation  and  its  Scriptural  use.  Both  these 
elements  admit  of  very  definite  determination. 

All  grammarians  agree  in  sa3'ing :  Substantives  derived  from 
verbs  and  ending  in  iia  express  effect,  product,  result,  state.  Thus, 
Kuhner:  "Substantives  with  the  ending  [la  denote  the  effector 
result  of  the  transitive  action  of  the  verb;"  Buttman:  "The  ter- 
mination jia  expresses  the  effect  of  the  verb  as  a  concrete ;"  Sopho- 
cles :  "  The  termination  /j-a  denotes  the  effect  of  a  verb ;"  Crosby : 
"  Nouns  formed  from  verbs  denote  the  effect  of  the  action,  have 
im  added  to  the  root  of  the  verb ;"  Jelf:  "  Nouns  ending  in  ;j.a 
express  the  effect  of  the  transitive  notion  of  the  verb;"  Winer: 
"  Formations  in  /xa,  as  fidTtriff/ia,  are  used  mostl}'  in  the  sense  of 
product  or  state.''''  Hermann  Cremer  (Bib.  Theo.  Lex.) :  "  Bar:- 
Tiajioq  denotes  the  act  as  a  fact ;  j3d-TCff/j.a  the  result  of  the  act ; 
used  exclusively  by  Biblical  and  Ecclesiastical  writers." 

It  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  settled,  that  iM-zcu/ia  by  deri- 
vation and  form  expresses  the  effect,  product,  state,  result,  of  the 
act  which  is  the  executive  of  ^ar.ri^u).  But  whatever  may  be  the 
specific  act  (among  the  legion  that  wait  on  iianziZiu)  the  effect, 
product,  result,  state,  accomplished  is  with  in  nexs  vuthout  removal 
(involving  of  necessity  all  the  influential  issues  consequent  upon 
such  withinness)  when  the  verb  is  used  in  primary-  application. 

The  effect,  product,  result,  state,  of  a  ship  witli  its  crew  sunk  by 
a  storm,  or  naval  conflict,  or  excessive  cargo,  to  the  bottom  of  the 
ocean,  might  be  described  as  a  fidTzzctr/xa ;  and  such  a  fjdTzna/m  iu- 
(  488  ) 


USAGES    OF    Banriana   HARMONIOUS.  489 

volves,  of  necessity,  the  utter  loss  of  the  ship,  and  the  utter  loss 
of  life  to  the  crew.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  jSaTzzca/ia  is  never  ap- 
plied by  Classic,  or  Inspired,  or  Ecclesiastical  writers  to  any 
such  jDhysical  effect,  product,  result,  or  state. 

In  the  secondary  use  of  ^anTi^u)  where  withinness  does  not  ap- 
pear (but  only  a  complete  "  effect,  product,  result,  or  state,"  as 
in  "  baptized  b}''  wine  "),  the  drunken  "  effect,  product,  result, 
state,"  might  be  described  as  a  (idnnaiia ;  but  again,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  there  is  no  such  usage  of  this  word  by  any  class  of  writers. 
The  use  of  (SanTi^cu  with  an  ideal  element,  expressed  by  ei^  and  its 
regimen,  does  not  appear  in  the  Classics ;  this,  like /JaTrrf/r/^a,  is 
found  for  the  first  time  in  the  Scriptures,  and  is  never  found  there 
with  a  physical  receiving  element. 

Whenever  jSaKzc^^w  is  used  with  a  complementary  ideal  element, 
the  "  effect,  product,  result,  state,"  of  such  use  (indicated  by  the 
complete  influence  of  the  ideal  element)  will  be  properly  expressed 
by  fid-7ZTt(JiJ.a.  And  such,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  and  is  the  sole  use  of 
this  word  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  never  there  used  to  denote  an 
"  effect,  product,  result,  state,"  within  a  physical  element.  The 
pdr,riaij.a  of  Scripture  invariably'  expresses  the  changed  condition 
"effect,  product,  result,  state,"  oi the  soul  passing  "into  repent- 
ance," into  the  remission  of  sins,  "  into  the  name  op  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  "  into  his  death,"  and  not  of  the  body  passing  into  water. 
And  this  ^dnztaim  is  as  invariably  characterized  by  Spiritual  puri- 
fication as  indicated  by  the  ideal  elements. 

This,  as  has  been  already  shown  at  large,  is  the  unquestionable 
usage  of  [id-Tt(Tiia  in  the  Scriptures.  And  it  is  in  the  most  perfect 
accord  with  the  laws  of  derivation  regulating  the  import  of  all 
such  words. 

These  points  being  established  we  proceed  to  inquire  whether 
the  usage  of  this  word  by  Patristic  writers  is  in  harmony  with 
them. 

Patristic  and  Inspired  Usage  of  pdizriaixa  Harmonious. 

It  is  certain,  that  Patristic  like  Classic  writers  while  using  ^ait- 
Ti^cu  to  effect  the  destruction  of  ships  and  of  human  life  at  the 
bottom  of  the  sea,  do  never,  in  such  cases,  use  [ddizziffp-a  to  express 
the  consequent  "  effect,  product,  result,  state."  It  is  certain,  that 
Patristic  like  Classic  writers  while  using  [^anTi'^w  to  effect  that 
drunken  condition  (without  inness)  consequent  upon  wine-drink- 
ing, do  never  use  (idnnaixa  to  express  such  "  effect,  product,  result, 


490  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

state."  It  is  certain,  that  Palristic  writers  do  use  [ia-rC^oj  with 
ail  ideal  element  (sk  and  Accusative),  and  without  an  ideal  ele- 
ment (Genitive  and  Dative  with  or  without  a  preposition)  to 
express  physical,  mental,  and  moral  conditions  (where  no  within- 
ness  is  possible)  without  using  ^dr^naiia  to  denote  the  resultant 
effects ;  but  in  using  identically  the  same  grammatical  forms  to 
express  a  complete  spiritual  change  in  the  condition  of  the  soul, 
they  do  employ  and  limit  j3d7TrcfT/j.a  to  denote  this  "effect,  product, 
result,  state."  There  is  therefore,  before  any  detailed  examina- 
tion is  made,  a  violent  presumption,  that  they  use  this  word  as 
Inspired  writers  use  it  in  like  relations,  namely,  to  express  not  a 
physical  but  a  spiritual  "  effect,  product,  result,  state."  With  this 
antecedent  presumption  against  a  jjliysical  baptism  (because  un- 
supported by  usage  and  destructive  to  life)  and  in  favor  of  a 
spiritual  baptism  (because  sustained  by  usage  and  in  harmony 
with  all  Scripture  teaching)  we  proceed  to  consider  the  direct 
evidence. 

There  is  no  small  number  of  cases  in  which  (idnrtaiia  appears 
without  any  feature  in  the  construction  or  in  the  facts  to  deter- 
mine the  meaning  of  the  word.     This  is  true  in  all  those  cases 
where  this  word  is  used  comprehensively  to  designate  the  whole 
rite  ;  just  a§  the  widely  differing  term  (fwriaiia  is  used  for  the  same 
purpose.     The  assumptiou,  that  [ia-riaim  is  used,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, to  denote  the  manner  or  the  result  of  using  the  water 
is  inadmissible:   1.  Because  as  yet,  if  there  should  ever  be,  there 
is  no  evidence  of  the  use  of  pdr.-KTim  to  denote  the  effect  of  the 
verb  where  water  is  the  complement  to  the  idea  of  the  verb ;  2. 
Because  there  is  evidence  from  derivation,  that  such  use  would 
involve  the  destruction  of  life ;  3.  Because  there  is  evidence  of 
the  use  of  [idr^-naiia.  where  water  has  no  place.     These  antecedent 
difficulties  which  bar  the  wa}'  against  the  use  of  this  word  to  ex- 
press the  resultant  state  of  an  object  put  within  water  without 
limitation  of  time,  must  be  met  and  overcome  by  indubitable  facts 
before  a  step  can  be  taken  in  the  direction  of  a  water  covering,  so 
far  as  this  word  is  concerned.    The  presumption  is  heavily  against 
such  use.     The  burden  must  be  lifted  by  those  whose  cause  re- 
quires it. 

The  point  at  issue  is  this :  Does  [idr^TKrim  in  Patristic  writings 
indicate  a  physical  "effect,  product,  result,  state,"  over  an  ob- 
ject, from  i)osltlon  within  water,  without  limitation  of  time,  or  is 
it  limited  to  express  a  thoroughly  changed,  spiritual  condition, 


PATRISTIC    BAPTISM    IS    SPIRITUAL.  491 

without  limitation  of  time,  effected  with  or  without  ideal  within- 
ness  ? 

We  proceed  to  adduce  proof  in  support  of  the  latter  position. 

THE   PATRISTIC   BAnTISMA    HAS   A   SPIRITUAL   IMPORT. 

General  Idea:  Definition. 

The  following  question  and  answer  presents  an  entirely  accurate 
view  of  the  purport  of  i3dTtTt.aiJ.a  as  entertained  by  the  Patrists. 

Basil  the  Great,  III,  736:  ''"Tiq  6  Xoyor;  ij  ij  duvann;  ruo  (iaTtriff- 
y.aro>z ;  To  aXXoiodr^vai  rbv  jjanrd^orisvov  xard  ze  vouv^  xai  koyov^  y.ai  Ttpd^iv^ 
xdi  yeviaOai  ixeTvo  xard  ttjv  8o0el<Tav  dovajuv^  OTzep  iffr).  to  t?  uo  lyzwqOi]. 

"  Quae  sit  ratio  ant  vis  baptismatis  ? 

"  Nempe  ut  baptizatus  et  mente  et  sermone  et  actione  mutetur, 
atque  per  virtutem  sibi  datam  fiat  idipsum,  quod  est  ilkul  ex  quo 
uatus  est. 

"What  is  the  purport  and  power  of  baptism  ? 

"  The  baptized  is  thoroughly  changed  as  to  thought,  and  word, 
and  deed,  and  becomes,  according  to  the  power  bestowed,  the 
same  as  that  by  which  he  was  born." 

This  defining  answer  of  Basil  declares  [idTzziaiia  to  be  the  repre- 
sentative of  a  thoroughly  changed  spiritual  condition  assimilated 
to  the  characteristic  of  the  power  b}'^  which  the  change  has  been 
eflected.  And  this  view  is  in  accord  with  all  Classic,  Jewish,  and 
Inspired  usage.  It  is  identically  the  same  conception  as  that 
which  runs  through  all  this  Inquiry.  The  reason  for  the  intro- 
duction of  iyewrjOv]  is  to  be  found,  in  general,  in  the  equivalence 
(as  these  writers  supposed)  between  regeneration  and  baptism ; 
and,  in  particular,  because  this  inquiry  touching  baptism  is 
grounded  in  the  immediately  antecedent  quotations  of  Matt. 
28: 19,  "Go,  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  Name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  and  John 
3:3,  5,  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Except  a  man  be  born 
again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  And  again,  "  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  3^ou,  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  conjunc- 
tion of  these  passages  strikes  the  keynote  of  Patristic  views  on 
Christian  baptism.  Their  bajMsm  (notwithstanding  the  presence 
of  water  and  the  manner  of  its  ordinary  use)  does  not  belong  to 
the  sphere  of  phj'sics ;  but  is  purely  spiritual  in  its  character. 


492  -  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Confirmatory  of  this  view  of  Basil  are  the  following  references  : 
Tertullian  1, 1203:  "  The  Spirit  of  God  borne  above  the  waters 
in  the  beginning,  is  a  fignre  of  baptism.  The  holy  was  borne 
above  the  holy,  or  that  which  bore  received  sanctity  from  that 
which  was  upborne.  Since  whatever  substance  is  beneath  re- 
ceives, of  necessity,  character  from  that  which  is  above,  especially 
is  a  physical  substance  pervaded  by  a  spiritual,  through  the 
subtlety  of  its  nature.  So  the  nature  of  the  waters  was  sanctified 
by  the  Holy  and  received  the  power  to  sanctify." 

This  was  a  baptism  of  the  waters,  according  to  the  definition 
of  Basil,  they  having  received  a  thorough  change  of  character  by 
a  communication  of  power  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  whereby,  also, 
they  are  enabled  to  baptize  others,  which  previously  they  could 
not  do.  That  is  to  say :  Simple  water  cannot  effect  Christian 
baptism.  It  must  have  a  special,  divine  power  communicated  to 
it  first.  Therefore,  Didymus  Alex.  (692)  says,  referring  to  this 
same  movement  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  waters  and  its  effect  in 
changing  their  nature — "  "OOev  dSiaxplrwe;  -avT\  uSarc  .  .  .  j3d7:zc(Tfj.a 
yiverai  Whence  baptism  is  effected  by  all  water." 

Does  water  require  a  new  power  to  be  divinely  communicated 
to  it  in  order  that  it  may  be  qualified  for  a  dipping'^ 

Jerome,  II,  161 :  "How  can  the  soul,  which  has  not  the  Holy 
Spirit,  be  purged  from  old  defilements  ?  For  water  does  not  wash 
the  soul  unless  it  is  first  washed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  it  may 
be  able  spiritually  to  wash  others.  '  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord,'  says 
Moses,  '  was  borne  above  the  waters.'  " 

Jerome  teaches:  1.  Baptism  is  soul  washing;  2.  Natural  water 
cannot  wash  the  soul ;  3.  Natural  water  is  tvashed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  4.  This  "  washed "  water  has  power  spiritually  to  wash 
the  soul  =  to  baptize  it,  thoroughly  to  change  it,  assimilating  it 
to  the  characteristic  of  the  baptizing  power;  5,  Patristic  "wash- 
ing "  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  sphere  of  physics  than  has  Pa- 
tristic baptism.  What  agent  in  physics  can  so  wash  water  that 
it  can,  then,  wash  the  soul  ?  Jerome  says  :  The  ^o\y  Spirit  can 
so  "wash"  water;  and  Tertullian  and  Didymus  say:  lie  does 
thus  wash  it  by  imparting  to  it  his  own  quality  ;  and  Basil  says : 
This  is  baptism — a  thorough  change  and  assimilation  of  condition. 
All  of  which  is,  if  possible,  yet  more  expressly  stated  in  Cyprian, 
1057,  1082  :  "  For  neither  can  the  Spirit  operate  without  water,  nor 
water  without  the  Spirit.  .  .  .  But  it  is  necessary  that  the  water 
be  first  purified  and  sanctified,  that  it  may  be  able  (rw  }diw  fianzcff- 


ASSIMILATION.  493 

fxart)  by  its  own  baptism  to  cleanse  away  the  sins  of  the  baptized 
man." 

This  teaches'  us:  1.  Baptism  is  a  changed  condition  in  which 
appear  "  purification  and  sanctiScation ; "  2.  Wafer  can  be  bap- 
tized ;  and  is  baptized  when  purified  and  sanctified.  After  water 
is  thus  baptized  it  has  power  to  baptize  the  guilty  soul  =  take 
away  its  sins ;  and  without  being  itself  so  baptized,  it  cannot 
baptize  Ghristianly ;  3.  Christian  baptism  is  not  a  dipping  into 
water. 

These  quotations  exhibit  ground  elements  running  all  through 
Patristic  baptism,  and  any  interpretation  which  does  not  accept 
them,  and  is  not  governed  hy  them  as  first  principles,  must  be 
worthless. 

Assiviilation. 

Assimilation  (that  is  to  say,  the  characteristic  of  the  baptism 
conformed  to  that  of  the  baptizing  power)  is  declared  by  Basil 
and  Tertullian  to  be  an  essential  feature  of  Christian  baptism. 
This  idea,  so  radical  and  so  far  removed  from  a  water-dipping, 
may  be  further  illustrated. 

Basil,  III,  1551  :  "  The  Lord  himself  declares  what  it  is  to  be 
baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  when  he  says :  '  That  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.' 
.  .  .  Since  we  know  and  are  fully  convinced,  that  that  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  of  any  one,  is  such  as  that  of  which  it  is  horn; 
so,  also,  of  necessity,  we,  born  of  the  Spirit,  are  spirit ;  but  not 
Spirit  according  to  the  great  glory  of  the  Hoh'^  Spirit ;  but  accord- 
ing to  the  diversity  of  the  gifts  of  God,  through  his  Christ,  to 
every  one  for  profit.  .  .  .  1564  :  So,  we  are  reckoned  worthy  to 
be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  and 
deemed  worthy  of  the  great  gift  which  the  Apostle  announces, 
saying:  '  As  many  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on 
Christ.'  '  There  is  neither  Greek  nor  Jew,  circumcision  nor  un- 
circumcision,  barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  nor  free,  but  Christ  is  all 
in  all.'  .  .  .  1565:  Having  put  on  the  Son  of  God,  he  is  deemed 
worthy  of  the  highest  grade,  and  is  baptized  into  the  name  of  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
John  :  '  He  gave  them  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God.'  .  .  1571 : 
After  we  have  put  on  the  Son  of  God,  who  gives  power  to  become 
the  Sons  of  God,  we  are  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
accounted  the  Sons  of  God,  as  says  the  prophet,  '  I  will  be  to  you 


494  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

a  Father,  and  ye  shall  be  to  me  sous  and  daughters,  saith  the 
Lord  Almighty.' " 

We  have  here  Basil's  interpretation  of  baptisiU  as  a  thorough 
change  in  thought,  word,  and  deed,  together  with,  of  necessity, 
an  assimilation  to  the  baptizing  power,  just  as  "that  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  such  as  is  the  flesh  of  which  it  is  born,"  How  is 
such  a  baptism  to  be  converted  into  "a  dipping  into  water"? 

Jerome  Til,  456:  "'In  whom,  also,  having  believed  ye  were 
sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise.'  The  seal  is  of  God,  that 
as  the  first  man  was  made  after  the  image  and  likeness  of  God,  so, 
in  regeneration,  whosoever  shall  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit, 
he  will  be  sealed  by  Him  and  receive  the  image  of  his  Maker. 
But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise?  I  think, 
that  as  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  holy  him  in  whom  he  is  poured 
(eum  cui  fuerit  infusus),  and  the  spirit  of  wisdom  makes  wise, 
and  the  spirit  of  intelligence  makes  intelligent,  and  the  spirit  of 
counsel  makes  cautious  and  prudent,  and  the  spirit  of  courage 
makes  courageous,  and  the  spirit  of  knowledge  gives  knowledge, 
the  spirit  of  piety  makes  pious,  the  spirit  of  fear  makes  fearful 
and  trembling  through  feai-^f  God  ;  so,  also,  the  Spirit  of  promise 
or  the  Spirit  of  God  makes  him  in  whom  he  dwells  Sponsor  and 
God,  As,  on  the  other  hand,  an  unclean  spirit  makes  unclean, 
and  a  filthy  habitant  makes  for  himself  a  filthy  house ;  also,  a 
spirit  of  fornication  makes  fornicators,  and  a  vile  spirit  makes 
men  vile  and  perverse,  and  a  demon  makes  demoniacs,  and  as  a 
liquor  poured  in  a  new  earthen  jar  (novae  testse  infusus  est)  shall 
have  been,  the  earthen  jar  long  retains  suchlike  smell  and  taste." 

1.  The  "seal"  and  the  "regeneration"  spoken  of  by  Jerome 
represent  baptism  ;  2.  The  Holy  S[)irit  in  sealing,  regenerating, 
baptizing,  makes  like  himself;  3.  Like  begets  like,  is  variously 
illustrated,  as  baptisms  are  of  endless  variety;  4.  The  baptism  of 
the  soul  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  by  his  being  "poured" 
into  it,  as  the  wine  is  represented  as  "poured  "  into  the  earthen 
jar,  baptizing  it  by  communicatin<j  to  it  its  ovvn  characteristics 
of  odor  aiul  taste,  Jerome  agrees  with  IJasil,and  TertuUiau,  and 
Didyinus,  that  baptism  is  enstami)ed  with  the  characteristic  of 
the  baptizing  power.  None  of  them  know  anything  of  a  water- 
dipping  as  entering  into  Christian  baptism,  lidr.naixa  is  the  re- 
sultant product  assimilated  to  the  baptizing  power. 


BAPTISM    A    NEW    LIFE.  495 

Baptism  a  Neio  Life. 

Gregory  Nazianzen  II,  360 :  "•  The  Word  of  God  recognizes 
a  threefold  birth  ;  the  one  of  the  body,  the  other  of  baptism,  the 
other  of  the  resurrection.  Of  these,  the  first  is  dark,  servile,  and 
impassionate ;  the  second  is  bright,  free,  controlling  the  passions, 
exscinding  every  veil  proceeding  from  birth,  and  conducting  to 
the  heavenly  life ;  the  third  is  more  fearful  and  brief,  collecting 
together  in  a  moment  every  creature  in  the  presence  of  the  Creator 
to  give  account  of  their  stewardship  and  manner  of  life.  ...  Of 
the  first  and  the  last  of  these  births  we  will  not  now  speak,  but 
will  treat  of  the  second. 

"Baptism  {(pmTKTiia)  is  the  illumination  of  the  soul,  a  change  of 
life, '  the  answer  of  the  conscience  toward  God ;'  Baptism  {(fmrcffixa) 
is  the  strengthening  of  our  weakness ;  Baptism  {(pwrirrixa)  is  the 
putting  away  of  the  flesh,  the  following  of  the  Spirit,  the  partaking 
of  the  word,  the  rectification  of  our  image,  the  purging  of  sin, 
the  participation  of  light,  the  dissipation  of  darkness ;  Baptism 
{<p<uTL<r!J.a)  is  the  chariot  of  God,  the  walking  with  Christ,  the  sup- 
port of  faith,  the  perfection  of  understanding,  the  key  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  the  exchange  of  life,  the  abrogation  of  slavery, 
the  loosening  of  bonds,  the  remodelliug  of  our  composition  ;  Bap- 
tism {(pwTtffiia)^  what  more  is  it  necessary  to  enumerate  ?  It  is 
the  noblest  and  the  most  magnificent  of  the  gifts  of  God.  For  as 
some  things  are  called  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  the  Song  of  Songs 
(because  the}'  are  of  wider  compass  and  of  greater  dignity),  so, 
also,  is  this  Baptism  {<f(OTi<Tiia)  more  holj'  than  all  the  other  Bap- 
tisms {(pu)T(.(7ii.u)v)  which  we  possess." 

This  new  life  of  the  soul  after  the  Divine  likeness,  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  is  the  Christian  [id-naiia  according  to  the  learned 
metropolitan  archbishop  of  Constantinople.  According  to  the 
theory  it  is  a  dip  into  water!  Gregory  N.  interclianges  fidnnaixa 
and  (pmzKTiJ.a;  the  former  including  the  entirety  of  tlie  changed 
spiritual  condition,  the  latter  pointing  out  one  particular  feature 
of  it.  How  "  Illumination  "  is  to  become  the  synonym  for  dipping 
I  do  not  know,  ^mriaim  is,  like  iSdnrtaiia^  an  "  effect,  product, 
result,  state,"  and  is  a  water-dipping  as  much  (no  more,  no  less) 
as  is  (idnTt(Tij.a. 

HiERONYMUs  Gr^cus  XL,  860:  "I  wish  to  learn  how  thou  dost 
know  that  thou  hast  certainly  been  baptized.  I  know  it  (cx  r^? 
ivepyeiaq)  by  its  Operation,  as  Isaiah  says,  '  Through  thy  fear,  0 


496  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Lord,  we  have  conceived  and  travailed  and  brought  forth  the 
Spirit  of  salvation.'     It  is  evident  that  the  Illuminated  {ul  <pwrta- 
divzeq  8ta  too  ftaTTTifffxaroq)  through  baptism,  have  received  the  Holy 
Spirit.     For  God  again  says  through  the  prophet,  concerning  the 
baptized,  '  I  will  dwell  in  them  and  walk  in  them ;'  and  also,  '  I 
will  pour  out  (hxecH)  from  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh.'     Therefore, 
as  man}'  as  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit  within  them  by  the  holy 
baptism  (Iv  zio  ayiu)  jSaTZTCfffxari)  do  niost  assuredly  know  that  they 
have  been  baptized  by  the  boundings  and  prickings,  and  trans- 
ports, and  workings,  and,  so  to  speak,  leapings  of  the  grace  of 
the  Spirit,  for  no  unbaptized  man  (ajSa-rcffroq)  upon  earth  is  pos- 
sessed of  such  grace  and  power ;  it  belongs  only  to  those  who 
have  conceived  (Si  udaroq  xat  Ihevixaroq)  through  water  and  the 
Spirit,  and  preserve  this  grace  pure  and  unpolluted.     For  as  ^  yuvii 
eyooffa  tv  yaarpi  ataOdvarai  zutv  <TxipT7j;j.dTwv  rud  j3pi<pouq  k'vdvv  ahr7,'Z^  so 
also  they   by  the  grace,  and  joy,  and   delight,  begotten  within 
them,  do  know  that  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  they  received  (iv  zih 
(^aTZTiaiiazi)  by  the  baptism,  does  dwell  in  them.     For  concerning 
this  grace  {too  dyioo  fianTtff/xaTo-:)  of  the  holy  baptism,  Christ  said: 
'  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  within  you.'     And  does  every  man, 
unlearned  and  learned,  know  that  he  has  been  baptized  through 
this  proof  alone,  and  not  through  any  other  ?     Yes  ;  this  is  the 
true  and  unerring  proof  of  a  Christian.     As  I  have  said :  'H  iv 
yarJTfn   eynuaa  oux  arzo  prjpATuJv^  d).)^  and  npay/idTwv  y.ai  twv  too  j3pi<pou<; 
ff/.cpT7]!J.dT<o.'  yivwff/.Ei  dy.pti3u>z  oTi  (Tuvi?.a,3ev^  SO  also  the  true  Christian 
not  by  hearing  from  his  parents,  of  those  who  baptized  him,  nor 
by  any  other  means,  but  by  his  own  heart,  he  ought  to  have  the 
assurance  that  he  had  received  the  holy  baptism,  and  that  he  was 
deemed  worthy  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  .  .  .  This  hidden  grace  and 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart  no  one  upon  earth  ever 
receives  except   those  who  have  been  truly  baptized   into  the 
Father,  and  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  concerning  this  our  riches  the 
Lord  says :  '  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  to  treasure  hid  in  a 
field,'  that  is,  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  hidden  in  us  in  the  day 
of  the  divine  baptism.  .  .  .  These  things  are  adduced  that  the 
Christian  may  know  that  he  has  received  the  hoi}'  baptism,  and 
that  he  is  a  true  Christian.  .  .  .  The  mark  of  a  Christian  is  no 
external  thing." 

Tills  Greek  declares  that  the  Christian  [idnTiatm  is,  1.  A  result 
effected ;  2.  That  this  result  is  within  the  soul ;  3.  That  it  is  an 
abiding  result ;  4.  That  it  is  spiritual  in  its  nature ;  5.  That  it  is 


DIVERSE    NAMES    OF    BAPTISM.  497 

assimilant  to  the  power  ijroducing  it ;  6.  That  it  is  a  matter  of 
self-consciousness. 

All  which  is  absurd  as  applied  to  a  water-dipping. 

Diverse  Names  of  Baptism. 

Chrysostom  II  (parsprior)^  225  :  "It  is  necessary  to  say  some- 
thing as  to  what  (rd  l3d:TTC(Tfj.a)  the  Baptism  is.  But,  if  you  please, 
we  will  first  speak  of  the  designation  of  this  mystical  (xaOap/jMu) 
cleansing.  For  its  name  is  not  one,  but  many  and  diverse.  For 
this  purification  is  called  (1)  The  washing  of  regeneration  :  '  For 
He  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  Regeneration  and  the  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.'  It  is  also  called  (2)  Illumination ;  Paul  saj's, 
'  Remember  the  former  days  in  which  ye  were  illumined.'  It  is 
also  called  (3)  Baptism  ;  '  For  as  many  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ  have  put  on  Christ.'  It  is  called  (4)  Burial ;  '  For  we  are 
buried  together  with  him  by  baptism  into  his  death.'  It  is  called 
(5)  Circumcision  ;  '  In  whom  we  are  circumcised  by  the  circum- 
cision made  without  hands,  by  the  putting  off  of  the  body  of  the 
sins  of  the  flesh.'  It  is  called  (6)  Cross  ;  'For  our  old  man  was 
crucified  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroj'cd.' " 

These  diverse  names  employed  by  Chrysostom  to  designate  to 
^dnTiff/ia^  Christian  baptism,  are  all  spiritual  or  express  a  spiritual 
result:  1.  "The  washing  of  regeneration"  is  a  washing  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  issued  in  tJ  fidTTTCff/j-a  =  a  regen- 
erate and  renewed  condition  of  the  soul;  2.  "Illumination"  is 
the  condition  of  the  soul  spiritually  enlightened ;  3.  "Baptism" 
is  the  condition  of  the  soul  assimilated  to  Christ;  4.  "Burial"  is 
the  spiritual  unity  with  Christ  in  his  death  carried  on  to  coburial 
in  his  sepulchre;  5.  "Circumcision"  is  the  application  of  the 
name  of  the  type  to  its  spiritual  antitype,  the  excision  of  sin  from 
the  soul;  6.  "Cross"  is  the  application  of  the  name  of  the  instru- 
ment by  which  Christ  was  baptized  into  death,  and  the  eflfect  of 
that  death  in  destroying  the  life  of  sin  in  the  souls  of  his  people. 

These  diverse  titles  are  intelligible  as  expository  of  an  "  effect, 
product,  result,  state"  accomplished  in  the  soul;  as  expository  of 
"dipping  and  nothing  but  dipping"  they  are  worse  than  Babel 
echoings. 

One  of  these  titles  Chrysostom,  himself,  explains ;  he  says, 
"  Many  other  names  might  be  mentioned,  but  lest  we  consume  all 
the  time  on  the  titles  of  this  grace,  let  us  return  to  the  first  title 

32 


498  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

and  explain  that.  .  .  .  That  washing  which  is  through  the  baths 
(^To  Xourpov  TO  8ia  rajv  i3aXav£iojv)  cleansing  the  filth  of  the  body  is 
common  to  all  men.  There  is  a  Jewish  washing  {knurpov  ' louda'ixdv) 
which  is  much  better  than  this,  but  much  inferior  to  that  of 
grace.  .  .  .  Jewish  washing  cleansed  impurity  which  was  cere- 
monial, not  real,  but  the  washing  of  grace  (ro  Xoorpov  r?;?  Xdpauq) 
not  only  cleanses  ceremonial  but  real  impuritj'',  which  infects  both 
bod}'  and  soul.  It  cleanses  not  only  from  touching  dead  bodies, 
but  from  dead  works.  If  any  one  should  be  an  adulterer  or  an 
idolater,  or  should  commit  any  other  wrong,  or  should  be  full  of 
all  wickedness  among  men,  having  entered  {si<;  rr^v  xnkunjSTjOpav) 
into  the  pool  of  the  waters,  he  would  arise  from  the  divine  waters 
purer  than  the  rays  of  the  sun.  .  .  .  What  can  be  more  wonder- 
ful than  this,  when  righteousness  may  be  obtained  without  labor, 
or  toil,  or  good  works?  ...  If  a  brief  letter  of  a  king  can  set 
free  those  who  are  guilty  of  ten  thousand  crimes  and  exalt  others 
to  the  highest  honor,  much  more  ma}'  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God, 
possessed  of  all  power,  free  from  all  wickedness,  bestow  abundant 
righteousness,  and  fill  with  all  boldness.  And  as  a  spark  falling 
into  the  midst  of  the  sea,  is  immediately  quenched,  and  becomes 
invisible  (xaranovnaOtiq)  swallowed  up  by  the  multitude  of  the 
waters,  so  also  all  human  wickedness  when  it  falls  into  the  pool 
of  the  divine  waters,  is,  more  quickly  and  more  easily,  than  that 
spark  (xaTanovTi^erai)  swallowed  up  and  becomes  invisible.  And 
why,  if  the  washing  (to  hiurpov)  takes  away  all  sins  from  us,  is  it 
not  called  the  washing  of  the  remission  of  sins,  or  the  washing 
of  purification,  but  the  washing  of  regeneration  ?  Because  it  not 
only  remits  to  us  sins,  and  not  only  cleanses  us  from  faults,  but 
it  does  so  as  if  we  were  horn  again.'^ 

Aourpov. 

The  important  position  occupied  by  hiurpov  in  this  passage  and 
so  frequently  recurring  in  like  important  relations  all  through  the 
Patristic  writings,  makes  a  clear  and  correct  meaning  of  this 
word  specially  important. 

Words  of  tliis  termination  do  not  receive  as  simple  and  single 
a  nu'iiiiing  from  Grammarians  as  words  of  some  other  termi- 
nations. Crosby  includes  under  this  termination:  1.  Place;  2. 
Instrument;  3.  Other  means;  Bultman  makes  it  significant  of 
"the  names  of  instruments   and  other  objects  belonging  to  an 


Aoorpov.  499 

action ;"  Kuhner,  "  Substantives  which  denote  an  instrument  or  a 
means  of  accomplishing  some  object." 

Liddell  and  Scott  define — 1.  A  bath,  bathing-place ;  2.  Water 
for  bathing  or  washing;  3.  The  equivalent  of  drink-offerings, 
libations;  4.  Bathing;  Bobinson,  "In  N.  T.  a  washing,  ablution; 
spoken  of  religious  ablutions  or  baptisms  ;"  Sept.  for  '^'^^1 ;  which 
Gesenius  defines  "  a  washing.  Cant.  4:2;  6  :  6."  Cremer  says, 
"  Answering  to  the  Biblical  use  of  hwsiv  it  denotes  baptism.  Eph. 
5  :  26  ;  Tit.  3:5;  where  we  must  bear  in  mind  the  close  connec- 
tion between  regeneration  and  purification.  In  Classical  Greek 
Xourpd  in  like  manner  denote  propitiatory  offerings  and  offerino-s 
for  purification.  Soph.  El.,  84,  434." 

Bp.  EUicott  (Eph.  5  :  26)  thinks  "the  meaning  of  kourpov  as  a 
laver  is  indisputable.  The  peculiar  force  of  the  termination  (in- 
strumental object)  may  be  distinctly'  traced,  in  all  cases  yet 
adduced." 

The  evidence  in  support  of  this  position  is  not  satisfactory. 
A  laver  is  not  the  instrumental  object  for  washing.  A  plouo-h 
(apoTpov)  is  the  instrumental  object  by  which  ploughing  is 
effected;  a  currycomb  {^nazpio)  is  the  instrumental  object  bv 
which  currying  is  effected ;  teaching-money  (ilidaxTpav)  is  the 
instrumental  object  by  which  payment  for  teaching  is  effected; 
and  ransom-money  (Xinpov)  is  tlie  instrumental  object  by  which 
ransoming  is  effected ;  but  a  laver  (?.<tuTp6i>)  is  not  the  instrumental 
object  by  which  a  ivashing  is  effected.  A  "laver"  stands  in  an 
essentially  different  relation  to  washing  from  that  in  which  a 
plough  stands  to  ploughing,  or  a  currycomb  to  currying,  or  teach- 
ing-money to  teaching,  or  ransom-money  to  ransoming;  a  "  laver" 
does  no  washing.  The  Septuagint  gives  h,uTrjp  as  the  term  for 
"  laver,"  but  the  New  Testament  does  not  use  the  word  ;  no  doubt 
because  no  such  instrument  was  known  in  New  Testament  bap- 
tism. We  have,  also  (outside  of  the  Scriptures),  kuuTijptov  for  the 
vessel  containing  the  water,  and  not  kourpov. 

The  instrumental  object  (including  the  means)  in  washing  is  the 
water  ;  as  the  plough  ploughs,  and  as  the  ransom-money  ransoms, 
so  the  water  washes.  The  water  which  makes  up  the  bath  is 
designated  by  Homer  as  Osp/jA  kotrpd ;  and  Josephus,  de  Bel.  VII, 
6,  3,  calls  the  water  from  the  hot  and  cold  springs  near  Machferus, 
a  ver}'  pleasant  kourpov.  It  would  be  remarkable  if  in  usage  a 
word  used  to  designate  the  water  used  for  washing,  did  not  pass 
on  to  designate  the  washing  itself.     What  else  can  such  classic 


500  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

phrases  as  Xouffai  riva  Xoorpov  and  Patristic  phrases  as  XobaaaQat 
Touro  TO  Xourpov  (Justin  M.,  516)  mean,  but  to  wash  a  washing'? 
And  when  this  word  passes  out  of  mere  physics  into  a  religious 
sphere,  it  would  be  natural  for  it  to  assume  the  broader  idea  of 
purification  where  there  was  no  physical  washing  ;  which  Liddell, 
Scott,  and  Cremer  appear  to  recognize  as  a  fact  in  heathen  rites. 
Cremer  saj^s :  '•'' kobeiv  is  the  term  used  b}'  the  Septuagint  to 
denote  the  theocratic  washings  on  account  of  sin.  And  while 
^aTtrO^etv  was  used  for  the  N.  T,  washing  in  order  to  purification 
Xousiv,  Xoorpov^  serve  in  some  passages  to  give  prominence  to  the 
full  import  of  /SaTrrtCety  which  had  become  a  term,  tech.,  or  to  de- 
note purification  generally,  Heb.  10:22;  Rev.  1:5;  Eph.  5:26; 
Tit.  3:5.  See,  also,  Ecclesiasticus  31:25:  'What  profits  (t<Ij 
Xnurpw)  his  washing  to  one  baptized  from  the  dead,  when  he 
touches  it  again  ? '  In  classical  Greek  Xuurpd  denote  offerings  for 
purification." 

The  intimate  relation  declared  by  Cremer  to  exist  between 
^anTi^u)  and  Xouw.,  and  j3dnTi(r/ia  and  Xiiurpov,  in  relation  to  purifica* 
tion  is  abundantly  justified  by  the  passage  before  us,  as,  also, 
everywhere  throughout  the  Patristic  literature. 


Usage  of  Xourpov  in  this  passage. 

Chrysostom  is  speaking  in  exposition  of  (to  ftd-KTiaixa)  the  bap- 
tism. This  he  announces  as  a  mystical  purification  {too  pvotv/mo 
r.aOapiwh).  He  adds :  "  This  (jd  xaOdp(no\>)  purification  is  called 
(XouTpov  ■KaXiyye.'effiaq)  the  washing  of  regeneration."  This  title  of 
Christian  Baptism,  "the  mystical  purification,"  can  hardly  be  a 
physical  laver,  or  physical  water  constituting  the  material  for  a 
bath,  nor  yet  washing,  as  a  process  ;  the  only  appropriate  inter- 
pretation seems  to  be  the  purification  resultant  from  washing. 
And  this  purification  is  shown  to  be  spiritual  in  its  nature  by 
reason  of  the  qualifying  TzaXtyyeveaiaq — it  is  a  regenerative  purifica- 
tion ;  also,  because  what  is  here  called  by  Chrysostom  XouTpov 
TzaXtyyeusmaq  is  called  by  Origen  (II,  850)  [idTznaim  rtaXiyy^vsaia^^ 
which,  also,  he  calls  "the  second  circumcision,  purging  the  soul," 
showing  its  spiritual  nature.  This  is  farther  confirmed  by  Justin 
Martyr  (500,  504) :  "  Isaiah  did  not  send  you  to  the  bath  {fiaXavdov) 
there  to  wash  away  {dnoXowaidvouq)  murder  and  other  sins,  which 
all  the  water  of  the  sea  is  not  able  (xaOapiffat)  to  cleanse ;  but,  as 


AoOTpOV.  501 

is  reasonable,  this  was  of  old  time  (to  autrripiov  Xovrpov)  that  saving 
washing  which  he  announced  to  the  repenting,  no  longer  seeking 
purification  (xaOaptl^ofiivouq)  by  the  blood  of  goats  and  sheep,  but 
by  faith  through  the  blood  of  Christ  and  his  death.  .  .  .  There- 
fore (oca.  TOO  kooTpoo  r^?  /j.sravoh':)  through  the  washing  of  repent- 
ance and  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  we  have  believed  and  declare 
that  that  (iSdnrcffiia)  which  Isaiah  foretold  is  the  only  baptism 
which  is  able  (/.aOapiaai)  to  cleanse  the  repenting  ;  this  is  that 
water  of  life.  But  ye  have  formed  cisterns  for  yourselves  which 
are  broken  and  worthless.  For  what  profit  is  there  of  that  bap- 
tism which  (<paidpi)vei)  makes  bright  the  flesh  and  the  body  only  ? 
Baptize  (ISaTZTiffOrjze)  the  soul  from  anger  and  covetousness,  from 
envy  and  hate,  and  behold  the  body  is  clean!"  Is  not  this  testi- 
mony clear,  full,  and  varied,  showing  that  kourpov  is  neither 
"  laver,"  nor  "  water  for  a  bath,"  but  is  a  spiritual  washing  of  the 
soul  effected  according  to  Chrysostom  by  the  "  washing  {kuuzpov) 
of  regeneration,"  and  according  to  Justin  Martyr  by  "the  wash- 
ing (Xuurpov)  of  repentance?"  Justin  further  says:  "  This  wash- 
ing (kuurpov)  is  called  Illumination  {(piuTiapM)^  since  those  learning 
these  things  are  illumined  as  to  their  understanding.  .  .  .  And 
the  daemons  having  heard  of  this  (kourpov)  washing  through  the 
announcement  of  the  prophet,  required  their  worshippers  (pavri- 
^etv)  to  sprinkle  themselves."  That  this  kourpdv  fulfilled  its  office 
of  washing,  purifying,  by  sprinkling  and  pouring,  not  only  in 
the  hands  of  heathen  men  but  also  of  Christians,  is  not  only  in- 
ferable from  the  language  of  Justin,  but  is  of  direct  testimony 
by  Basil,  Letter  386,  "  He  (Ariantheus,  baptized  by  his  wife  on 
his  dying  bed)  washed  away  all  the  stains  of  his  soul  at  the  close 
of  his  life  (XouTpuj  izaXiyyeveaiaq)  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  " 
(Beecher,  p.  209).  This  Xuurpov  washing,  purifying,  was  not  by 
covering  in  water  for  a  bath,  but  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 
Farther  proof  of  this  is  found  in  the  additional  statement  by 
President  Beecher :  "  Porphyry  asserts,  in  libel,  de  antro  Nym- 
pharum,  that  it  was  customary  for  married  women  to  purify 
maidens  by  sprinkling  or  aifusion,  before  marriages,  with  water 
taken  from  fountains  and  living  springs.  Photius  tells  us  that 
the  water  used  for  this  purpose  at  Athens,  was  brought  in  a 
pitcher  from  certain  fountains  which  he  specifies,  by  the  oldest 
male  boy  of  the  family.  The  water  thus  used  is  called  Xouzpov,  or 
Xourpa  vu[i(pud,  and  Zonaras  defines  Xuurpd  thus,  rd  eiq  Xofftv  dXovra 
rr^q  dxadapa{a<;.     Those  things  which  produce  the  removal  of  im- 


502  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

purity  =  means  of  purification.  Tlie  boy  who  brought  the  water 
was  called  hiorpixpopo^.^^ 

The  proof  is  absolute  :  1.  That  Xourpov  does  not  mean  a  laver; 
2.  It  has  no  special  limitation  to  water  for  a  bath  ;  3.  It  is  applied 
to  water  in  a  pitcher ;  4.  It  expresses  the  means  for  purification, 
and  also  the  purification  effected ;  5.  The  manner  of  using  this 
means  to  effect  purification  is  a  matter  of  the  most  absolute  in- 
difference; in  religious  rites,  whether  heathen  or  Christian, 
sprinkling  and  pouring  were  common,  lawful,  and  unquestionable 
forms,  in  the  most  perfect  harmony  with  the  meaning  and  deri- 
vation of  the  word ;  other  modes  were  exceptional. 

The  interchange  and  the  equivalence  of  hiurpov  and  [idr^Tiajxa 
appear  everywhere  in  Patristic  writings.  Both  terms  are  employed 
to  denote  the  means  (and  the  same  means)  of  purification.  Both 
terms  are  employed  to  denote  the  purification  eff'ected.  Both 
terms  are  employed  to  cover  the  entire,  complex,  rite.  Both 
terms  are  employed  to  denote  the  purifying  element  in  a  pitcher. 
Both  terms  are  applied  to  various  purifying  elements — water, 
blood,  tears,  fire,  etc.  Both  terms  are  employed  in  the  same 
combinations,  Xourpov  iisravnia^^  i3dnzi.ff!J.a  /j.£Tavoca<; ;  Xourpov  naXcyyeve- 
aiaq^  (iaTzriffim  nahYytveaiaq^  XouTpov  [iaXaveiwv  fid-rtaiJ.a  Xd/./.tov  (^Just. 
31.,  516).  Both  terms  find  their  execution  in  sprinkling  and 
pouring.  Both  terms,  throughout  the  Patristic  writings  in  re- 
ligious rites,  relate  to  spiritual  and  not  physical  purification- 
Neither  term,  as  used,  has  any  reference  to  a  water  covering. 

Purijication. 

Chrysostom  in  the  passage  before  us  is  treating  of  nothing  but 
purification  and  its  varieties.  He  first  speaks  of  "  the  washing 
which  is  ('5t«)  through  the  feoi/i.s."  It  is  impossible  that  this  can 
mean,  the  "  laver  "  which  is  "  through  the  baths."  It  is  impossible 
that  it  can  rationally  mean,  '■'■the  water  for  a  bath^^  which  is 
'■'■through  the  baths.'"  It  is  absurdly  impossible  that  it  can  mean, 
'''■the place  which  is  through  the  baths.''''  It  must  mean  the  wash- 
in<T  =r  the  purification  which  is  effected  ^'■through  the  baths;"  the 
preposition  requires  this.  This  conclusion,  forced  upon  us  by 
the  terms,  Chrysostom  expressly  declares  to  be  his  meaning  by 
saying,  it  is  "  the  cleansing  of  the  filth  of  the  body  "  to  which  he 
refers.  This  bath  purification,  he  says,  all  men  possess.  He 
then  speaks  of  a  purification  which  all  men  do  not  possess.     It  is 


Aourpov.  503 

a  tTewish  purification  (jMurpov  '[oudalxov).  This  Jewish  Xoorpov  dif- 
fers from  the  bath  kouTpuv^  in  that  it  cleanses  from  legal  impurity, 
which  the  other  does  not.  That  is  to  say,  this  Jewish  Xoorpov  is 
another  thing  entirely  from  that  of  the  bath,  in  that  the  former  is 
possessed  of  a  lutric  (purifying)  power,  of  which  the  other  has 
nothing.  This  ceremonially  purifj'ing  power  finds  its  ordinary 
development  through  the  sprinkling  and  the  pouring  of  the 
Xoorpov  (as  was  daily  done  in  the  Grecian  baths),  but  the  purify- 
ing effect  was  wholly  diverse ;  because  there  was  a  divinely  ap- 
pointed power  in  the  Xourpov  "louda'Uov  which  was  not  in  the  Xoorpov 
did  rujv  ISaXavscojv.  Chrysostom  introduces  us  to  a  third  purifica- 
tion— rd  Xoorpov  ri^c  '^apiro<;  the  washing  of  grace.  This  )Morp6v  is 
as  essentially  diverse  from  that  belonging  to  "  Judaism  "  as  is 
that  of  Judaism  diverse  from  that  of  "  the  baths."  Each  Xoorpov 
receives  its  distinctive  character  from  the  peculiar  purification 
which  it  has  power  to  effect.  And  the  nature  of  this  power  is 
set  forth  by  the  adjunct  to  the  general  term  ;  thus  Xoorpov  fiaXavetwv 
is  a  simple  physical  bath  purification,  the  modus  of  which  is  no 
element  of  consideration  ;  the  Xoorpov  voiJ.<pu6v  is  a  bridal  purifica- 
tion essentially  diff'erent  in  character  from  the  bath  ijurification  as 
to  its  subject,  as  to  its  administrators,  as  to  the  bearer  of  the 
Xoorpov^  and  as  to  the  nature  of  the  purification  effected,  w^hich 
was  not  physical  but  ritual;  the  Xoorpov  Xdxxwv  (the  washing  of 
cisterns)  of  Just.  M.,  refers  to  ceremonial  purification  and  is  the 
same  as  the  Xoorpov  'loodaixov  which  was  a  legal  purification  cleans- 
ing from  the  ceremonial  impurity  caused  by  touching  a  dead 
body,  etc. ;  the  Xoorpov  x(^piro<;  was  a  spiritual  purification  cleans- 
ing from  the  impurity,  not  of  a  dead  body,  but,  of  dead  works. 
It  is  needless  to  say,  how  diverse  is  this  purification  from  that 
of  "  the  bath  common  to  all  men,"  and  from  that  of  ceremonialism 
restricted  to  "  the  Jew." 

Patristic  writers,  generally,  make  the  water  used  in  baptism  an 
eflBcient  element  in  this  Spiritual  Xoorpov,  not  however  as  simple 
water  but  as  possessed  of  a  special  power  divinely  communicated; 
but  this  is  without  any  Scriptural  basis.  The  word  of  God  knows 
nothing  but  a  Xoorpov  of  repentance,  of  faith,  of  regeneration, 
wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  receiving  all  their  lutric  power 
from  the  atoning  blood  of  "  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world." 

This  usage  of  Xoorpov  by  Chrysostom  and  others  as  the  equiva- 
lent of  i^dnnaixa  is  SO  abounding  and  so  clear  (therefore  giving 


504  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

light  to  and  receiving  light  from  that  word)  that  it  could  not  be 
passed  by  without  some  special  notice. 

Dr.  Carson. 

Dr.  Carson  (p.  486)  closes  a  "Dissertation  on  Xoou)^^  in  the  fol- 
lowing words :  "  That  the  word  does  not  necessarily  express 
mode,  I  readily  admit."  And  ^ar^riZw  expresses  mode  just  as 
little  as  Xoow.  "Immersion  is  almost  always  the  way  of  bathing." 
The  common  way  of  bathing  among  the  Greeks  was  not  by  im- 
mersion, but  by  pouring  water  over  the  body.  "  All  that  I  con- 
tend for  from  this  word  is,  that  the  object  to  which  it  is  applied 
is  covered  with  the  water,  and  that,  without  a  regimen,  it  refers 
to  the  whole  body."  The  bodies  of  Paul  and  Silas  were  washed 
(eXovaev)  but  were  not  "  covered  with  the  water."  The  body  of 
Dorcas  was  washed  (^Xouffmreq)  but  not  "  covered  with  water."  The 
bodies  and  the  souls  of  the  redeemed  are  washed  {hiuaavn)  but  not 
"  covered  "  with  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.  "  The  application  of 
this  word  to  baptism  shows  that  the  rite  was  a  bathing  of  the 
whole  body ;  and  as  immersion  is  the  usual  wa}'  of  bathing,  bap- 
tism must  have  been  an  immersion,  because,  when  it  is  called  a 
bathing,  the  reference  would  be  to  the  common  way  of  bathing ; 
not  to  a  merely  possible  way."  The  common  way  of  Greek  bath- 
ing was  not  by  immersion  but  by  pouring,  therefore  the  use  of 
Xoorpov  in  baptism  does  not  imply  that  "  baptism  was  an  immer- 
sion." The  application  of  Xoucu  and  Xuurpov  to  baptism  shows 
nothing  as  to  the  manner  of  using  the  water  in  the  rite,  1.  Because 
it  is  admitted  that  the  word  "  does  not  express  mode ;"  2.  Because 
Xouu)  and  Xourpov,  as  applied  to  baptism,  have  no  reference  to 
physics ;  but  like  [ia-Kri'^u)  and  [idTZTi(JiJ.a  relate  to  a  spiritual  wash- 
ing or  purification — Eph.  5  :  26  {r<u  Xouzpw)  cleansing  "  b}^  the 
word  "  spiritually,  as  perfectly  as  water  cleanses  physically ;  Titus 
3:5"  d'A  XouTpoo  Tzahyy^vzffia^  He  saved  US  through  regenerative 
cleansing ;"  Rev.  1:5"  Xovijav-t  Who  washed  us  by  his  blood." 
Neither  the  "  word  of  God,"  nor  "  regeneration  b}'  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  nor  "the  blood  of  Christ,"  effects  a  physical  washing. 
There  is  no  more  modal  use  in  the  s3-mbol  cleansing  of  water  than 
there  is  in  the  cleansing  by  "  the  word,"  by  regeneration,  or  by 
the  blood  of  Christ.  Ileb.  10  :  22  " >idw/i.^w>«.  Our  hearts  (.»«"- 
rtfffisxn)  Sprinkled  (v,  19  by  the  blood  of  Jesus)  and  our  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water,  let  us  draw  near."     There  is  no  reason 


AouTpdv.  505 

why  this  washing  of  the  body  as  originally  applied  to  the  "  He- 
brews "  should  not  be  a  physical  cleansing.  Such  was  the  uni- 
versal requirement  made  of  the  Hebrews ;  but  we  must  not  con- 
found differences  because  of  some  common  relation.  This  ph37sical 
washing  of  the  Hebrew  is  made  the  basis  for  inculcating  a  spirit- 
ual washing  of  the  Christian.  A  physical  washing  was  required 
of  the  Jew  when  he  would  present  himself  before  God  ;  and  to  this 
Paul  refers.  A  ceremonial  washing,  which  was  not  a  physical 
cleansing,  was  required  of  the  Jew  to  remove  an  ideal,  ceremonial, 
impurity,  which  might  be  effected  by  sprinkling.  To  this  cere- 
monial use  of  water  enjoined  upon  the  Jew  the  Saviour  refers 
(John  3  :  5)  in  his  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  addressing  him 
as  a  Jew  and  teaching  him  that  not  only  this  cleansing  was  needed 
by  him  as  a  Jew,  but  a  higher  cleansing,  even  that  of  the  Spirit, 
was  needed  by  him  as  a  Christian.  Paul  teaches  us  in  Eph.  5  : 
26,  that  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  by  the  word  is  as  perfect  as  the 
cleansing  of  the  body  by  water ;  and  because  the  cleansing  by 
"  the  word,"  by  "regeneration,"  by  "  the  blood  of  Jesus,"  is  per- 
fect, therefore,  such  cleansing  is  symbolized  by  the  pure  water 
used  in  ritual  baptism.  It  is  not  true,  however,  that  the  water  in 
John  3  :  5,  Eph,  5  :  26,  Rom.  10  :  22,  has  any  direct  reference  to 
the  water  used  in  baptism. 

Dr.  Carson  concludes  thus:  "I  claim,  then,  the  evidence  of 
all  those  passages  in  the  New  Testament  which  by  this  word  refer 
to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  I  make  a  similar  demand  with  re- 
gard to  the  use  of  the  word  by  the  Fathers.  Justin  Martyr  not  only 
always  uses  the  word  conformably  to  this  distinction,  but  speak- 
ing of  the  pagan  purifications  invented  by  the  daemons  in  imitation 
of  baptism,  he  showed  that  they  used  the  washing  of  the  whole 
body  as  the  most  complete  purification.  Baptism  then  is  immer- 
sion and  nothing  but  immersion  is  baptism." 

This  claim  is  foundationless  alike  as  to  the  New  Testament  and 
the  Fathers.  The  representation  made  as  to  the  usage  of  Justin 
M.  is  specially  inaccurate.  This  martyr  to  the  truth  speaks  in 
the  following  distinct  terms — "  492  :  And  when  the  daemons  had 
heard,  through  the  preaching  of  the  prophet,  of  this  (Xtwrpov) 
washing,  they  required  their  worshippers  (pavrtl^ecv)  to  sprinkle 
themselves."  Subsequently  he  speaks  of  a  washing  (^XoueffOac)  ; 
but  a  washing  in  religious  rites  is  effected  by  a  sprinkling  more 
frequentl}'  than  in  any  other  way.  Paul  speaks  of  the  blood  of 
Jesus  being  applied  by  "sprinkling"  to  the  heart.     Such  sprink- 


506  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

ling  effects  a  washing  =  a  thorough  cleansing  of  the  bod}'  and  the 
soul  from  sin.  It  is  this  "  sprinkling  "  which  effects  the  umahing 
(/.iiutra'^n)  in  Rev.  1  :  5.  Whatever  has  a  power  to  wash,  cleanse, 
is  a  /Murpov ;  Xourpd  are  various  in  nature,  and  in  the  washings, 
cleansings,  which  they  effect ;  and,  also,  in  the  manner  of  their 
operation.  The  kourfwv  '^o,nfr/.dv  effected  its  bridal  washing  by  the 
sprinkliug  of  special  waters.  The  washing  (Xoorpno)  and  llie  bap- 
tism (/JaTrriVrav/ro?)  of  the  victim  on  the  altar  of  Carrael  (Origen 
IV,  241)  effected  tlieir  ceremonial  cleansing  hy  the  pouring  of 
water  upon  it ;  just  as  the  ordinary  bath  washing  [Xuv-pov)  of  the 
Greeks  was  effected.  The  washing  (/.nurpdv)  of  the  blood  of  Jesus 
effects  its  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  sin  by  an  ideal  sprinkling  of 
the  heart. 

It  is  evident  that  every  /.ou-pdv  has  a  washing  power ;  and  the 
washing  effected  is  (in  kind)  like  to  the  washing  power.  Now, 
what  is  tliis  but  the  ,3d7:rc(Tfj.a  of  Basil,  to  wit,  a  thoroughly  changed 
condition,  like,  in  nature,  to  the  baptizing  power  which  has  effected 
the  condition  ? 

The  usage  of  Xduoj  and  Xourpdv  by  Patristic  writers  is  in  entire 
conformity  with  this  reasoning  and  its  conclusion  ;  they  use  these 
terms  not  only  as  capable  of  interchange  with  fianriZuj  and  [idnrinjia^ 
but  as  substantial  equivalents,  having  no  reference  to  modal  action 
and  in  religious  applications  without  reference  to  a  physical  cover- 
ing element. 

Therefore,  all  argument  from  the  use  of  these  words,  in  relation 
to  baptism  to  prove  a  water  covering,  fails.  The  general  usage 
and  sentiment  is  well  set  forth  by  Clemens  Alex,  {prior)  620: 
"It  is  especially  necessary  to  wash  {Xabstv)  the  soul  {-/.aOapioj  A6yw) 
by  the  purifying  Word.  .  .  .  '  Cleanse  {^/.aOdpiaov)  first  that  which 
is  within  the  cup,  that  that  which  is  without  may  also  be  made 
clean.'  Therefore  the  best  washing  (Xourpd'^)  cleanses  the  defile- 
ment of  the  soul,  and  is  (-yiu/zarizoV)  spiritual ;  concerning  which 
washing  the  prophet  clearly  says  :  '  The  Lord  will  cleanse  ('ezrr/tii/£i) 
the  defilement  of  the  sons  and  daugliters  of  Israel.'  And  the 
Word  has  added  the  manner  of  the  (xaOdptrewq)  cleansing,  saying: 
'  By  the  spirit  of  judgment  and  by  the  spirit  of  burning.'  But  the 
washing  of  the  body,  the  fleshly  washing,  is  accomplished  (Sid) 
by  water  only,  as  happens  often  in  the  country,  where  there  is  no 
(fiaXavehiv)  bath."  Clement  here  in  (Xourpdv  did  udaror;)^  like  Chrys- 
ostom  in  {Xourpdv  Old  rcoy  jSaXavsiwv)  distinguishes  between  Xourpdv 
the  washing  and  fiaXavsiuv  the  bath ;  the  instrumental  means  {ptd) 


DIVERSE    BAPTISMS.  507 

by  which  "the  washing"  is  effected.  Clement,  also,  distinguishes 
between  the  Xourpdv  Sid  /idvou  uSaroq,  which  is  <jap/.uw^  and  the 
XouTpdv  of  Christianity  y-aOaptriu)  Avyu)^  which  is  nv£Ufj.aTr/.uv.  This 
Xourpov  of  Christianity  was  effected,  Hilary  says,  "almost  daily" 
(among  the  sick)  by  sprinkling,  the  only  way  in  which  the  Scrip- 
tures ever  sa}^  the  blood  of  "the  purifying  Logos  "  is  applied  to 
the  soul.  And  as  this  Xourpov  was  identical  with  the  fidr.ri<Tixa^  the 
sprinkling  which  effected  the  one  effected  the  other  also. 

Diverse  Baptisms. 

Chrysostom  says :  "  The  name  of  baptism  is  not  one,  but  the 
names  are  many  and  diverse."  Ambrose  says  :  "  Baptism  itself 
{non  unum  est)  is  not  one,  but  there  are  (viulta  genera)  many 
diverse  baptisms."  This  is  the  universal  Patristic  sentiment,  and 
it  is  destructive  to  the  nothing  but  water-dipping  theory  of 
Christian  baptism. 

Gregory  Nazianzen  II,  353 ;  "  Let  us  discourse  somewhat 
concerning  the  diversities  of  baptisms  (nepl  dtdfopa^  iSaTZTcrr/idriuv).^^ 

1.  Moses  baptized,  yet  with  water  only  (aAA'  ^v  udart).  ...  2. 
And  John  baptized,  yet  not  Judaically,  for  he  baptized  not  only 
with  water  {ou  iv  udan  /loyov)^  but  also  (s;'?  ixz.rdvi)ia\<)  into  repent- 
ance; still,  he  did  not  baptize  altogether  spiritually  (Tzveu/iarud)':), 
for  he  does  not  add  this  (Iv  llvtuixari)  by  the  Spirit.  3.  And  Jesus 
baptizes,  but  {iv  flvsuparc)  by  the  Spirit.  This  is  perfection.  And, 
that  I  may  embolden  some  little,  How  is  he  not  God  by  whom 
even  thou  ma3'est  become  God  (i?  ou  xat  <tu  yivrj  deoc;)  ?  4.  And  I 
know  a  fourth  baptism,  that  (5ja)  by  means  of  martyrdom  and 
blood  (with  which,  also,  Christ  himself  was  baptized),  and,  indeed, 
much  more  admirable  than  the  others,  because  it  is  not  polluted 
by  after  defilements.  5.  And  I  know  yet  a  fifth  baptism,  that  by 
means  of  tears  (to  tcHv  daxpuwv) ;  but  more  painful  since,  washing 
(Xoi'jwv)  nightly  his  bed  with  tears,  the  wounds  of  his  transgression 
are  a  stench  unto  him.  ...  6.  And  there  is  a  final  baptism,  here- 
after, when  they  will  be  baptized  (rcD  -up\)  by  means  of  fire,  both 
more  painful  and  more  protracted. 

This  last  baptism  by  fire  is  made  the  last  in  a  list  of  eight 
diverse  baptisms  by  Athanasius.  He  sa3'S,  IV,  Y59 :  "  The  eighth 
baptism  is  the  final  baptism,  which  is  not  saving,  but  burning  and 
punishing  sinners  forever  and  ever." 

These  diverse  baptisms  are  constantly  met  with  through  all  the 


508  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Patristic  writings.  It  is  of  essential  importance  to  understand 
what  the  diversities  in  these  baptisms  are,  and  to  what  they  are 
due. 

A  glance  at  the  list  of  baptisms  presented  by  Gregory  N.  will 
show  a  diversity  in  the  agencies  by  which  the  baptisms  are  sever- 
ally effected.  1.  Moses'  baptism  has  as  its  agency  simple  water 
having  a  legal  power  to  cleanse  ceremonially,  but  without  any 
spiritual  power.  The  baptisma  effected  by  this  agency  was  a 
condition  thoroughly  changed  from  ceremonial  impurity  to  cere- 
monial purity.  The  more  common  mode  enjoined  in  tlie  using 
of  this  water  to  effect  this  baptisma  was  sprinkling;  dipping  is 
never  enjoined.  2.  John's  baptism  has  as  its  agency  water  neither 
aimple  nor  wholly  spiritual.  The  baptisma  which  it  effects  is  an 
imperfect  spiritual  condition  (penitential  in  nature)  preparative 
for  a  perfect  spiritual  baptisma  characterized  by  regeneration  and 
remission  of  sins.  3.  Jesus'  baptism  has  as  its  baptizing  agency 
the  Divine  Spirit  {Iv  Hvsu/iart).  The  presence  of  water  as  an  ele- 
ment in  this  agency  is  not  here  mentioned ;  but  such  is  the  Pa- 
tristic faith,  and  constitutes  emphatically  their  error  in  relation 
to  Christian  baptism.  The  Scriptures  never  associate  water  with 
the  agency  b}^  which  (in  contradistinction  from  his  ministers)  Jesus 
baptizes.  He  never  baptized  with  water.  He  does  ever  and  only 
baptize  (iv  Uveunan)  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  His  ministers  personally 
and  directly  do  ever  and  only  baptize  with  water,  symbolizing  the 
pure  nature  and  spiritually  purifj'ing  effect  of  the  baptism  of  their 
Lord.  The  baptisma  effected  by  this  Divine  agency  is  a  thor- 
oughly changed  spiritual  condition,  which  (according  to  the  some- 
what startling  language  of  Gregory'  N.)  bears  tlie  divine  lilieness 
of  the  Divine  Agent.  4.  Blood  baptism  does  not  (in  the  view  of 
the  Patrists)  present  in  its  active  agency  any  diversity  as  com- 
pared with  the  ordinary  Christian  baptism  by  water ;  there  is 
merely  tlie  substitution  of  blood  for  water,  while  the  same  divine 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  alike  through  the  one  and  the 
other,  effecting  the  same  perfect  baptisma  exhibited  in  regenera- 
tion and  the  remission  of  sins.  5.  Tears'  baptism  occu[)ies,  as  to 
its  agency,  precisely  the  same  relation  to  Christian  baptism  as 
does  "  Blood  baptism  ;"  penitential  tears  are  the  vehicle  through 
which  the  Divine  Spirit  operates  in  effecting  that  baptisma  which 
purifies  tlie  soul  from  all  sin,  and  especially  of  sins  committed 
after  baptism.  6.  Fire  baptism  has  as  its  agency  "  a  burning  and 
puniahing  power."     The  baptisma  effected  by  this  agency  (some- 


DIVERSE    BAPTISMS.  509 

times  diversely  explained)  is  a  thoroughly  changed  condition, 
marked  by  the  abiding  woe  proceeding  from  the  execution  of  the 
penalty  of  a  broken  law  and  of  rejected  mercy. 

Now  it  will  be  observed  that  in  all  these  diverse  baptisms  the 
baptisma  receives  its  character  from  and  partakes  of  the  nature 
(real  or  supposed)  of  the  baptizing  agency.  And  what  is  this  but 
a  necessity  proceeding  from  the  nature  of  things,  as  well  as  the 
verification  of  the  definition  given  by  Basil  of  a  jSanrcfffxa  ?  And 
what  are  all  these  facts  but  a  ploughshare  turning  up  the  founda- 
tions of  that  remarkable  theory  which  would  convert  the  Christian 
baptisma  into  a  water-dipping?  There  is  no  such  thing.  I  know 
of  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  things,  or  in  the  laws  of  language, 
why  ^dn/j-a  might  not  be  used  to  express  a  condition  of  wetness^ 
the  effect  of  dipping  into  water ;  but,  in  fact,  it  is  never  so  used, 
but  is  limited  to  express  a  liquid  having  some  definite  quality 
with  power  to  impart  that  quality ;  or  the  condition  effected  by 
this  qualit}^,  as  a  condition  of  color,  the  effect  of  some  agency 
having  the  power  to  color.  So  I  know  of  no  reason  in  the  nature 
of  things,  or  in  the  laws  of  language,  why  [idnrtffim  might  not  be 
used  to  express  the  condition  of  inness  (unlimited  by  time)  within 
a  fluid  element,  the  effect  of  the  action  in  ^dnri%o) ;  but,  in  fact,  it 
is  never  so  used,  but  is  limited  to  express  a  liquid  possessed  of  a 
definite  quality  with  power  to  impart  that  quality,  or  a  condition 
the  effect  of  such  agency  capable  of  thoroughly  changing  the  con- 
dition by  subjecting  the  object  to  its  own  quality.  As  a  ^djj.ij.a 
may  be  secured  by  putting  an  object  within  a  coloring  element, 
or  by  putting  the  coloring  element  upon  the  object;  so  a  [•iar.naij.a 
may  be  secured  by  putting  an  object  within  (really  or  ideally)  an 
element  which  thus  imparts  its  quality,  or  by  putting  the  element 
upon  or  within  the  object,  when  the  element  does,  in  such  way, 
impai't  its  quality.  And  as  it  is  an  absolute  indifference  to  the 
^dfj-im  whether  there  be  a  putting  into  or  a  putting  upon,  so  to  the 
fidnTCfffj-a  it  is  a  matter  of  infinite  unconcex'n  whether  the  object  be 
put  within  the  agenc}',  or  the  agency  be  put  within  or  upon  the 
object.  That  the  Christian  baptisma  consists  in  a  water-dipping, 
no  Patristic  writer  ever  thought  of  believing.  That  the  Christian 
baptisma  is  effected  in  the  most  perfect  manner  and  measure  by 
sprinkling,  no  Patristic  writer  ever  thought  of  questioning.  In 
vindication  of  these  positions,  let  us  briefly  glance  at  statements 
made  of  the  diverse  baptisms  above  referi*ed  to  by  Gregory  N. 
and  others. 


510  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Blood  Baptisms. 

Tertullian  I,  1217  :  "  We  have  a  second  washing  (lavacrum 
[A(>ur/7rti/] )  one  and  the  same,  to  wit,  of  blood.  These  two  baptisms 
(has  duos  haptismos)  he  shed  forth  from  the  wound  of  his  pierced 
side.  It  is  this  baptism  which  talies  the  place  of  the  wasliing  of 
water  when  it  has  not  been  received  and  restores  it  when  it  has 
been  lost." 

II,  135  :  "  God  foresaw  human  infirmity  and  the  imperilling  of 
faith  {post  laiiacrum  ^^ baptism)  after  the  washing  and  established 
a  final  protection  in  martyrdom  and  {lavacruvi  sanguinis)  the 
washing  of  blood.  .  .  .  To  martyrs  no  sin  can  be  imputed  since 
life  itself  is  laid  down  {in  lavacro)  in  the  washing  (baptism)." 
141 :  "  The  martyrs  rest  under  the  altar.  .  .  .  '  These  are  they  who 
have  washed  their  robes  and  made  them  white  by  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb.'  The  robe  of  the  soul  is  the  body.  Defilements  (sordes) 
are  indeed  washed  away  (abluuntur-)  by  baptism  (baptismate), 
but  stains  {maculse)  are  whitened  (candiduntur)  by  martyrdom." 
Tertullian,  like  others,  believed  that  while  water  effected  a  puri- 
fying baptisma  or  lavacrum  (the  terms  are  interchanged  as  equiva- 
lents), mart3'r  blood  effected  a  purifying  baptisma  or  lavacrum, 
more  desirable  and  more  secure,  because  it  had  no  after-defilement. 
1028:  "  Martyrium  j;iliud  erit  baptismum,  Martjaxlora  will  be 
another  baptism.^^  For  he  says:  Luke  12:50,  'I  have,  also,  an- 
other baptism.'  Whence  from  the  wounded  side  of  the  Lord 
water  and  blood  flowed  forth,  providing  each  washing —  .  .  .  first 
washing  (prima  lavacro)  by  water,  second  (secundo)  by  blood." 
Here  washing  =^ baptisma  =martyrium. 

Cyprian  III,  1123:  "Can  the  power  of  baptism  (vis  haptismi) 
be  greater  or  better  than  confession,  than  martyrdom,  when  one 
confesses  Christ  before  men  and  is  baptized  by  his  own  blood 
(sanguine  suo  baptizetur)  ?  And  yet  not  even  this  baptism  (hoc 
baptisma)  profits  the  heretic.  The  baptism  of  a  public  confes- 
sion and  of  blood  (baptisma  piiblicas  confessionis  el  sanguinis) 
cannot  profit  a  heretic  unto  salvation."  1124:  "Catechumens 
not  baptized  in  the  cliurch,  but  baptized  by  that  most  glorious 
and  greatest  bai)tism  of  blood  (haplizrntur  glor iosissimo  el  maximo 
sanguinis  baptismo)  are  not  dei)rived  of  grace.  The  Lord  de- 
clared (Luke  12  :  50)  '  That  lie  had  another  baptism  to  be  baptized 
with  ;'  and  lie  declares  that  those  baptized  with  their  own  blood 
(sanguine  suo  baptizatos)  obtain  divine  grace,  when  he  sa3s  to  the 


BLOOD    BAPTISMS.  511 

thief  in  his  very  passion  that  'he  should  be  with  him  in  paradise.' 
1198  :  Our  God  says  :  Luke  12  :  50,  'I  have  another  baptism  to 
be  baptized  with;'  Mark  10:38,  'Can  ye  be  baptized  with  the 
baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with?'  showing  that  he  must  be  bap- 
tized not  only  by  water  but  by  his  own  blood  ...  to  be  baptized 
by  either  mode  (utroque  modo  haptizare)  secures  alike  and  equally 
ONE  baptism  of  salvation  and  honor.  When  the  Lord  says,  '  I 
have  another  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,'  he  does  not  mean  a 
second  baptism  as  if  there  were  two  baptisms,  but  he  shows  that 
baptism  of  the  one  kind  or  the  other  (alterius  speciei)  is  given  to 
us  for  salvation.  Martyrs  receiving  the  baptism  of  blood  expe- 
rience no  loss  through  lack  of  the  baptism  of  water  ;  and  believers 
receiving  the  baptism  of  water  experience  no  loss  through  lack 
of  the  baptism  of  their  own  blood." 

Cyprian  II,  654  :  "  We  who  have  given  onl}^  the  first  baptism 
(of  water)  to  believers,  would  prepare  every  one  for  that  other 
(of  blood)  also,  teaching  that  this  Baptism  is  greater  in  grace,  sub- 
limer  in  power,  richer  in  honor,  a  Baptism  in  which  angels  bap- 
tize, a  Baptism  in  which  God  and  his  Christ  exult,  a  Baptism 
which  perfects  the  increase  of  our  faith,  a  Baptism  which  unites 
us,  leaving  this  world,  immediately  with  God.  The  remission  of 
sins  is  received  by  the  Baptism  of  water,  the  crown  of  virtues  is 
received  by  the  Baptism  of  blood." 

Origen  II,  980  :  "  Our  probation  does  not  extend  merely  to 
scourging  but  reaches  to  the  pouring  out  (profit sionevi)  of  blood: 
for  Christ  whom  we  follow  poured  out  {effudit)  his  blood  for  our 
redemption,  that  we  may  go  hence  washed  {loti)  by  our  own 
blood.  It  is  the  baptism  of  blood  only  which  makes  us  more 
pure  than  the  baptism  of  water.  The  Lord  says  :  '  I  have  a  bap- 
tism to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  am  I  straitened  until  it  be 
accomplished.'  You  see  tliat  he  called  the  pouring  out  of  his 
blood,  baptism  {profusionem  sanguinis  sui^  baptisma)  ...  by 
the  baptism  of  water  past  sins  are  remitted  ;  by  the  baptism  of 
blood  future  sins  are  prevented.  ...  If  God  should  grant  unto 
me  that  I  might  be  washed  {diluerer)  hy  my  own  blood,  that  I 
might  receive  this  second  baptism,  enduring  death  for  Christ,  I 
would  go  safe  out  of  this  world." 


512  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Christ's  Blood  Baptism. 

Augustine  IX,  276 :  "  Petilianus  says:  The  Saviour,  haviug 
been  baptized  by  John,  declaimed  that  he  must  be  baptized  again ; 
not  now  b}^  water  or  Spirit,  but  by  the  baptism  of  blood,  by  the 
cross  of  his  passion  (sanguinis  bapfismo,  cruce  passionis).  .  .  . 
Blush,  0  persecutoi's  !  ye  make  martj^rs  like  to  Christ,  whom,  after 
the  water  of  true  baptism,  baptizing-blood  sprinkles  (sanguis  hap- 
tista  perfundit).'^ 

Jerome  IV,  35:  "Isaiah  1:16,  'Wash  you,  make  j^ou  clean.' 
Instead  of  ancient  victims,  and  burnt  offerings,  and  the  fat  of  fed 
beasts,  and  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  ;  and  instead  of  incense, 
and  new  moons,  and  sabbaths,  and  festivals,  and  fasts,  and  kalends, 
and  other  solemnities,  the  religion  of  the  Gospel  pleases  me;  that 
ye  should  be  baptized  by  my  blood  (baptizemini  in  sanguine  meo) 
by  the  washing  of  regeneration  (per  lavacrum  regenerationis) 
which  alone  can  remit  sin." 

The  personal  baptism  by  blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  does 
in  its  character  stand  unapproachably  alone.  That  baptism  was 
into  penal  death  by  blood  substitutionally  shed  under  the  de- 
mands of  a  broken  Law.  This  blood-shedding  satisfied  the  Law, 
made  an  atonement,  and  hereby  became  invested  with  a  power  to 
remit  sin  unto  all  souls  upon  which  it  might,  by  the  Ploly  Ghost, 
be  "  sprinkled."  This  baptism  presents  an  infinite  difference  as 
it  is  related  to  Christ  and  to  his  people.  He,  sinless,  sheds  his 
blood  unto  death  for  sin,  that  that  blood  might  secure  the  power 
to  save  sinners  from  death  in  sin,  as  a  consequence  of  their  sin. 
Therefore  he  declares  (Mark  10  :  38),  that  in  his  personal  baptism 
of  blood  (  =  fulfilling  all  righteousness  and  bearing  the  penalty  of 
the  Law)  they  could  have  no  share.  lie  trod  the  wine-press 
alone.  Of  the  people  there  was  none  with  him.  And  therefore, 
again,  he  declares  (Mark  10  :  39),  that  in  his  personal  blood  bap- 
tism (as  he  is  thereby  made  'Jesus,  Saviour  of  his  people  from 
their  sins ')  they  shall  indeed  share.  This  power  to  remit  sin, 
secured  to  the  atoning  blood  of  the  Redeemer  (erroneously  sup- 
posed to  be  communicated  to  and  to  become  coefficient  with  the 
water  of  baptism,  the  blood  of  martyrs,  and  the  tears  of  penitents) 
is  the  key  by  which  Patristic  language  on  the  subject  of  Christian 
baptism  must  be  resolved.  Compare  the  above  statement  of 
Jerome  lY,  35,  "  That  ye  should  be  baptized  by  my  blood  which 
alone  can  remit  sin,"  with  Jerome  II,  161,  "How  can  the  soul 


Christ's  blood  baptism.  513 

which  has  not  the  Holy  Spirit  be  purged  from  old  defilements  ? 
For  water  does  not  wash  (lavat)  the  soul,  U7iless  it  is  itself  first 
washed  {lavatur)  by  the  Spirit,  that  it  may  be  able  spiritually 
to  wash  (lavare  spiritualiter)  others.  Moses  saj^s :  '  The  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  was  borne  above  the  waters;'  from  which  it  appears 
that  baptism  is  not  without  the  Holy  Spirit.  Bethesda,  a  pool  of 
Judaea,  was  not  able  to  heal  the  enfeebled  members  of  the  body 
except  through  the  coming  of  an  Angel ;  and  do  you  offer  to  me 
THE  SOUL  washed  with  simple  water  (aqua  simplici),  as  from  a 
bath  (balneo)  ?  .  .  .  The  baptism  of  the  Church  without  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  nothing." 

It  is  eminently  the  Patristic  sentiment,  that  water,  blood,  tears, 
baptize  (  ^  remit  sin)  only  through  a  divine  power  communicated 
from  the  blood  of  Christ  through  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  they  do 
repudiate  with  scorn  a  hath  (=  "  simple  water  ")  baptism,  or  a 
covering  with  mere  water,  blood,  or  tears,  as  Christian  baptism. 

The  blood  of  Christ  is  the  agency  (the  power  of  God)  to  remit 
sin,  which  power  has  infinitely  less  than  nothing  to  do  with 
quantity,  or  covering,  or  form  of  application,  and  it  was  only  as 
this  divine  power  was  (supposedly)  communicated  to  simple 
water,  martyr  blood,  penitential  tears,  that  the  Fathers  of  Chris- 
tianity believed  that  Christian  baptism  could  be  effected.  With- 
out it  all  the  oceans  of  earth  could  not  baptize  a  babe;  with 
it  sprinkling  drops  are  enough  to  baptize  a  world.  In  proof  of 
this  and  in  conclusion  of  these  Blood  baptisms  I  offer  one  other 
quotation. 

Chrysostom  II  (parsprioi-),  408  :  "  Why  did  Christ  suffer  with- 
out the  city  on  a  high  place  and  not  under  some  roof?  This  did  not 
take  place  without  a  reason,  but  that  he  might  purify  (xaOdpTj)  the 
nature  of  the  air ;  therefore  he  was  offered  on  a  high  place,  under 
no  roof,  but  instead  of  a  roof  with  the  heavens  stretched  above 
him,  that  the  whole  heaven  might  be  purified  (^xaOapOtj)  by  the 
Lamb  offered  on  a  high  place.  Therefore  the  heaven  was  purified, 
and  the  earth  was  purified.  For  blood  from  his  side  dropped 
(errrr/cs)  upon  the  earth,  and  its  defilement  everj'where  was  cleansed 
away  {l^e/AO-qpsv).  .  .  .  Because  the  whole  earth  was  defiled  (azd- 
Oapviiz)  by  the  smoke,  and  the  savor,  and  the  blood  of  idol  sacri- 
fices, and  of  other  pollutions,  of  the  heathen,  God  commanded 
the  Jews  to  sacrifice  and  pray  in  one  place.  But  Christ  having 
come  and  suflfered  without  the  city  he  purified  the  whole  earth, 

33 


514  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

and  fitted  every  place  for  prayer.  .  .  .  The  whole  earth  was  made 
holy  (a^'t'a)." 

No  one  familiar  with  the  Patristic  writings  will  deny  that 
Chrysostom  does  here  represent  the  heavens  and  the  earth  as 
BAPTIZED  (=  purified)  hy  the  uplifted  body  and  the  drop^nng  blood 
of  the  Lamb  of  God.  If  all  the  waters  of  the  Jordan  and  of  the 
whole  earth  were  "  baptized  "  (as  we  are  told  that  they  were)  by 
the  touch  of  the  body  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  then  the  whole  heavens, 
into  which  the  body  of  Jesus  was  lifted  up,  were  baptized  by  that 
body;  and  if  John  the  Baptist  was  "baptized"  (as  we  are  told 
that  he  was)  by  touching  with  his  hand  the  head  of  Jesus,  then, 
the  blood-BROPS  which  fell  from  that  thorn-pierced  head  had  power 
to  BAPTIZE  the  whole  earth;  and  Chrysostom  does  teach,  that 
blood-drops  from  the  Cross  did  baptize  a  world. 

These  Blood  baptisms,  alone,  are  adequate  to  prove  the  theory 
(which  makes  a  water  dipping  and  nothing  but  a  water  dipping 
Christian  baptism)  to  be  utterly  eraptj^  of  truth  and  a  supreme 
error  with  which  no  semblance  of  sympathy  can  be  found  in  the 
Patristic  writings. 

Tears'  Baptism. 

Clemens  Alex.  II,  649:  "He  wept  bitterly.  .  .  .  Having  been 
baptized  a  second  time  b}'  his  tears  (roF?  ddxpuffi  fian-d^o/ievoq  ix 
Ssuripou).'' 

Athanasius  IV,  644:  "God  has  granted  to  the  nature  of  man 
three  baptisms  (rpta  ,3a-T{<T;mTa)  purifying  from  all  sin  whatso- 
ever. I  mean,  1.  The  baptism  by  water  (udaroq);  2.  The  baptism 
by  our  own  blood  through  (Scd)  martyrdom  ;  3.  The  baptism  by 
tears  ((^td  daxpocov)  into  which  (sig  or.sp  baptism)  the  harlot  was 
purified  {h-aOapiffOtj).  And  likewise  Peter,  the  chief  of  the  Holy 
Apostles,  after  his  denial,  having  wept,  was  received  and  saved. 
....  It  is  necessary  to  know  that  equally  with  the  baptism  (of 
water),  the  fountain  of  tears  purifies  (xaOapiXsc)  a  man." 

IV,  760:  "A  sixth  baptism  is  that  by  (f^iri)  tears,  which  is  pain- 
ful, as  one  washing  nightly  his  couch,  and  repenting,  and  griev- 
ing, on  account  of  sins  committed." 

Clemens  Alex,  speaks  of  the  captain  of  a  band  of  robbers  (once 
a  disciple  of  the  Apostle  Jolm)  as  baptized,  a  second  time,  by 
tears.  The  case  is  spoken  of  absolutely  as  a  baptism,  and  the 
agency  in  effecting  the  baptism  is  said  to  be  "  tears."  There  is 
no  such  absurdity  as  that  of  making  "  tears  "  a  receiving  element 


TEARS     BAPTISM.  515 

into  which  the  robbei'  captain  was  dijyped.  It  is  not  needful  that 
one  tear  should  moisten  the  cheek.  Tears  are  worth  nothing  for 
this  baptism  except  as  exponential  of  the  penitential  sorrow  of 
the  soul.  So  in  Blood  baptism  ;  it  is  neither  necessary  that  the 
blood  should  touch  the  person  of  the  martyr,  or  that  one  drop  of 
blood  should  be  shed  in  the  martyrdom.  The  only  value  of  the 
blood  is  its  evidence  of  a  love  and  faith  stronger  than  death. 
Numbers  without  number  have  received  the  baptism  of  martyr- 
dom iu  other  waj^s  than  by  the  sword.  But  these  "tears,"  and 
this  "  blood,"  occupy  the  same  identical  relation  to  the  baptism  as 
that  held  by  "the  water"  (however  used)  namely, ^/>a<  0/ agency. 
Modal  use  has  no  more  to  do  with  effecting  Christian  baptism  in 
the  case  of  water  (when  there  may  be  one,  or  thx-ee,  or  three  hun- 
dred dippings)  than  in  that  of  tears  and  blood,  where  there 
neither  is  in  fact,  nor  can  be  by  possibility,  any  dipping.  The 
BAPTISM  is  identicall}^  the  same  in  either  case. 

Athanasius  teaches  us,  that  the  three  baptisms — by  water,  b}'' 
blood,  and  by  tears — while  thej''  are  diverse  in  their  agencies, 
those  agencies  have  a  common  power  to  effect  one  and  the  same 
baptism,  whose  characteristic  is,  as  Athanasius  says,  "  purifica- 
tion from  all  sin." 

BoLTTTCff/ia  is  applied  both  to  the  effect  produced  and  to  that  which 
has  the  power  to  produce  the  effect.  Therefore  water  itself  is  a 
Baptisma,  a  loutron,  because  it  effects  a  baptism,  a  washing;  and 
so  are  blood  and  tears,  for  the  same  reason.  Tertullian  says,  the 
water,  and  the  blood,  flowing  from  the  wounded  side  of  the  Re- 
deemer were  "  two  baptisms  {duos  baptismos).^^  Water  is  said, 
"  to  receive  a  washing  in  order  that  it  may  effect  a  washing  "  = 
to  receive  a  baptism  that  it  may  effect  a  baptism.  The  same  usage 
holds  good  of  hjuTpov,  and  lavacrum. 

The  harlot  is  said  to  be  baptized  into  the  baptism  which  is 
effected  b}'  "  tears."  The  phrase  "  into  which  she  was  purified  " 
is  mixed;  fully  stated  it  would  be,  baptized  "into  which"  bap- 
tism (=  purifying  from  all  sin  whatever  etc;  atpe^cv  afxaprcwv)  "  she 
was  purified."  The  construction  is  analogous  to  "sprinkled  "  (by 
the  blood  of  Jesus  and  so  purified)  '"''from  {aizo)  an  evil  con- 
science." Peter  going  out  and  weeping  bitterly  I'eceived  the 
same  baptism  as  did  the  woman  that  was  "  a  sinner"  and  washed 
the  Saviour's  feet  with  her  tears.  It  is  hard  for  some  persons  to 
learn,  even  from  Athanasius,  that  sprinkling  tear-drops  baptize 
equally  with  the  billowy  waves  of  Jordan. 


516  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

In  these  three  quotations  we  find  the  Dative  without  a  prepo- 
sition, the  Genitive  without  a  preposition,  and  the  Genitive  three 
times  with  dta;  in  every  instance  expressive  of  agency.  If  any 
dependence  is  to  be  put  upon  those  two  illustrious  Grecians, 
Clement  and  Athanasius,  water^  blood,  and  tears  hold  the  same 
identical  relation  to  Christian  baptism,  namely,  that  of  agencies 
and  not  of  receptive  elements,  and  must  continue  so  to  do  until 
the  theory  shall  succeed  in  dipping  into  their  tears  "  the  robber 
chieftain,"  "  the  woman  that  was  a  sinner,"  and  "  the  chief  of  the 
holy  Apostles."  The  Patristic  baptisma  is  a  spiritual  condition 
and  not  a  physical  covering. 

Fu^e  Baptism. 

Tertullian  I,  1212:  '"There  cometh  One  who  will  baptize 
{tingueret)  by  the  Spirit  and  fire  '  (Luke  3  :  10).  Becaiise  a  true 
and  firm  faith  is,  by  water,  baptized  into  salvation  {vera  et  stabilis 
fides  aqua  tinguitur  in  salutem) ;  but  a  feigned  and  infirm  faith 
is,  by  fire,  baptized  into  condemnation  (simulata  autem  et  infirma, 
igni  tinguitur  in  judicium).''^ 

To  this  passage  the  following  note  by  Thomas  Corbin,  a  Bene- 
dictine monk,  born  A.D.  1694,  is  attached:  '■'' Spiritu  et  igni. 
For  so  John  says  Luke  .3:10:  'I  indeed  baptize  j^ou  with  water: 
but  one  mightier  than  I  cometh,  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  fire  (baptizabit  in  Spiritu  sancto  et  igni).'  John 
certainly  did  not  exclude  water  from  the  baptism  of  Christ,  but 
he  means  only  this,  that  his  washing  (ablutionem)  was  only  simple, 
that  is  outward,  by  simple  water  [simplici  aqua)  ;  but  that  wash- 
ing in  the  future  by  the  Baptism  of  Christ,  would  be  exalted  to  a 
higher  mystery  and  also  to  an  inner  washing  (ablutionem.)  of  the 
soul,  which  cannot  be  without  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But 
many  have  been  exercised  as  to  the  meaning  of  '  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  fire,^  and  moreover  it  has  furnished  occasion  to  some 
greatly  to  err.  For  there  were  some  of  the  old  heretics  who 
thought  that  that  fire  should  be  understood  simply  and  of  our 
real  fire,  and  therefore  that  fire,  equally  with  water,  should  be 
used  in  baptism.  Clemens  Alex,  says:  'Some  (as  Heracleon 
says)  burned  the  ears  of  the  sealed  (baptizatorum).^  And  another 
(Carm.  in  Marcion.  I)  relates  concerning  a  fire  baptism  of  the 
heresiarch  Valentin  us,  that  he  taught  a  double  baptism,  the  body 
taken  through  the  fire — Bis  docuit  tingi,  traducto  corp)ore  fiamma. 


FIRE    BAPTISM.  517 

Augustine,  also  (De  Hseres.  ad  Quodvult.  baer.,  59)  relates,  that  the 
Seleucian  heretics  administered  baptism  (igne)  by  fire.  Whatever 
may  be  true  of  these,  it  is  certain  that  fire  was  never  used  by  the 
Apostles  for  baptism,  and  therefore  it  was  never  commanded  by 
Christ.  Some  Catholic  Interpreters  think  more  correctl}',  that 
by  '  Spirit  and  fire  '  is  indicated  the  baptism  of  Christ  himself, 
upon  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  came  in  the  likeness  of  a  dove,  and 
at  the  same  time,  as  Justin  M.  relates:  'When  Jesus  had  de- 
scended to  the  water  a  fire  was  kindled  in  the  Jordan.'  But  in 
our  baptism  an  invisible  fire  is  kindled,  when  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  glides  into  our  hearts,  and,  as  Ambrose  saj^s,  con- 
3uaics  our  sins  and  purges  the  soul  from  their  defilement.  Some 
understand  (metaphorically)  that  suflTerings  and  persecutions  are 
indicated  by  'fire,'  as  gold  is  tried  by  the  furnace  of  fire.  Basil 
thinks  that  the  fire  should  be  understood  of  the  word  of  doctrine^ 
which  brings  both  condemnation  and  justification.  But  Tertul- 
lian  expounds  it  of  the  day  of  judgment,  of  the  fire  of  hell. 

"  The  opinion  of  those  who  understand  it  literally  of  the  de- 
scent of  the  Holy  Spirit  iyi  the  form  of  fire,  not  only  upon  the 
Apostles,  but  also  upon  their  disciples,  freshly  baptized,  pleases 
me  :  an  illustrious  example  of  which  is  furnished  in  Acts  11 :  11. 
The  best  meaning,  plain  and  literal,  of  the  words  of  John  the 
Baptist  seems  to  be  this  :  '  I,  indeed,  with  water '  (a  sterile  element, 
having  in  itself  no  power  of  grace)  '  baptize  you.'  But  '  He  shall 
baptize  you '  {not  with  mere  water  but)  '  with  the  Holy  Spirit ' 
(impregnating  the  water  of  Baptism  in  order  to  generate  grace, 
aquam  Baptismi  ad  progenerandam  gratiam  fcjecundante)  '  and 
fire,'  to  wit,  with  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  about  to  come,  with 
fire,  by  the  imposition  of  hands.  And  this  fiery  baptism  {baptis- 
mus  igneus)  is  that  which  Christ  himself  foretold  in  Acts  1 :  5,  8, 
which  was  fulfilled  ten  days  afterward  when  Pentecost  was  fully 
come." 

This  note  presents  the  view  very  commonly  held  b}''  Patristic 
writers  b}^  one  who  was  in  perfect  sympathy  with  their  senti- 
ments. There  is  no  attempt  to  introduce  a  covering  in  fire,  or  in 
the  Holy  Spirit,  or  in  water,  as  Christian  baptism.  Such  an  idea 
can  no  more  be  found  in  this  statement  than  a  plenum  can  be 
found  in  a  vacuum.  Water  ba]Dtism  is  an  external  ablution  (ab- 
lutio) ;  Spirit  baptism  is  an  internal  ablution  (ablutio)  ;  Fii'e  bap- 
tism is  tlie  touch  of  the  ear  by  hot  iron,  or  the  kindling  of  a 


518  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

flame  in  Jordan,  or  firelike  tongues  resting  upon  the  head  at 
Pentecost. 

The  water,  the  Spirit,  and  the  fire,  are  all  (equally'  and  alike) 
agencies  changing  the  spiritual  condition  and  not  receiving  ele- 
ments covering  the  body. 

There  is  one  error  of  interpretation  presented  in  this  note  which 
pervades  and  vitiates  all  Patristic  Baptism.  I  refer  to  the  intro- 
duction of  water  into  that  baptism  which  John  said  should  be 
executed  by  Christ.  There  is  no  scriptural  authority  whatever 
for  conjoining  water  with  that  baptism  which  is  distinctively  (ii> 
nve6fj.aTi)  effected  by  Christ.  John  the  Forerunner  expressly  and 
with  the  profoundest  emphasis  excludes  it — ''  I  ^i'  udarc  (invested 
only  with  that  power  which  belongs  to  water  as  a  symbol)  do 
symbolly  baptize  you  ;  He,  i.v  Iheunar:  (invested  with  that  power 
which  belongs  to  the  Spirit)  will  really,  spiritually,  by  Divine 
power,  baptize  you."  In  this  difference  he  establishes  the  incom- 
parable superiority  of  "  the  Coming  One."  John  the  Apostle 
(John  4  :  2)  carefully  guards  against  this  error  by  an  express 
separation  between  the  baptizing  of  the  disciples  and  their  Lord. 
In  the  promised  execution  of  this  baptism  (Acts  1 : 5)  the  Lord 
himself  does,  by  severe  contrast,  exclude  water  from  his  personal 
baptizing  and  does  limit  it  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  actual 
execution  of  this  baptism  (Acts  2  :  4)  not  only  has  water  no 
place,  but  its  absence  is  emphasized  by  the  presence  of  a  wholly 
diverse  symbol — firelike  tongues.  In  the  second,  formally  an- 
nounced execution  of  this  baptism  (Acts  10  :  44),  no  symbol  what- 
ever appears.  And  in  the  universal  execution  of  this  baptism 
(1  Cor.  12 :  13)  whereby  the  redeemed  of  all  ages  are  made  living 
members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit  appears  alone 
baptizing  by  his  sole  baptism  all  who  are  Christ's' into  that  one 
body  whose  head  is  Christ. 

The  error  which  incorporates  water  in  the  distinctive  baptizing 
of  Christ  is  the  vrpwrov  'FsuSix;  of  Patristic  theology  on  the  subject 
of  baptism,  robbing  them  of  the  Scripture  symbol-baptism  by 
watery  by  impregnating  that  water  (through  the  associated  Spirit) 
with  a  divine  power  to  regenerate  souls.  The  s3'mbol-baptism  is 
thus  swallowed  up.  Correct  this  error,  eliminate  water  from  the 
baptism  of  Christ  (iv  riweu/ia-c),  and  restore  it  to  its  scriptural 
relation  to  the  real  baptism  b}^  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  symbol,  ex- 
hibiting its  purifying  nature,  and  you  will  give  to  Patristic  theol- 
ogy (as  to  the  nature  and  power  of  Christian   baptism)  a  true 


FIRE    BAPTISM.  519 

scriptural  character.  Their  philology  as  to  the  usage  of  i3anz-^aj 
and  i3dT:-t(TiJ.a  needs  no  correction.  The  theory  but  dreams  when 
it  stakes  its  life  upon  the  usage  of  these  terms  as  importing  a 
dipping  into  water  or  a  water  covering.  There  is,  in  the  ordinary 
Patristic  baptism,  a  dipping  of  the  head  into  water,  and  therefore  a 
momentary  covering,  but  these  Greeks  knew  well  that  no  dipping 
or  momentary  covering  could  be  exponential  of  the  meaning  or 
the  power  in  ^anriZoi  and  jSanrca/j-a,  and  therefore  they  never  used 
the  one  or  the  other  for  any  such  purpose.  The  exposition  of  this 
dipping-covering  must  be  sought  elsewhere.  I  now  only  repeat, 
that  the  Patristic  baptisma  was  not  a  physical  covering  but  a 
spiritual  condition.  In  proof  of  which  see  further  these  other 
fire-baptisms. 

Basil  M.,  Ill,  1436:  "The  baptism  by  fire  {rb  [id-zifsij.a  iv  z(o 
r.up'i)  condemns  sin  and  accepts  the  Righteousness  of  Christ." 

So,  also,  de  S.  S.  ad  AmjjhiL,  XXXV :  "  The  baptism  of  fire  is 
the  trial  which  is  made  in  the  Judgment." 

Tertul.,  Ill,  1202:  "When  the  Holy  Spirit  had  descended 
upon  the  disciples  that  they  might  be  baptized  by  Him  (ut  in  illo 
baptizat-entur),  tongues  as  of  fire  (quasi  ignis)  were  seen  sitting 
upon  (insidentes  super)  each  one,  that  it  might  be  evident  that 
they  were  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  by  fire  (Spiritu  Sancto 
et  in  igne),  that  is,  bj'-  the  Spirit  (in  Spiritu)  which  is  fire,  or  like 
fire.  To-day  the  Spirit  is  invisible  to  men ;  but  in  the  beginnino- 
of  the  mystery  of  faith  and  of  Spiritual  baptism,  this  same  Spirit 
was  clearly  seen  and  sat  upon  the  disciples  like  fire :  likewise  he 
descended  upon  the  Lord  like  a  dove.  .  .  .  By  which  it  is  evident 
that  souls  are  cleansed  by  the  Spirit  (Spiritu  ablui,  '  which  is  fire 
or  like  fire')  that  bodies  are  washed  by  water  (per  aquam  lavari), 
also,  that  by  blood  (sanguiyie)  we  come  more  speedily',  by  compend 
(per  compendium),,  to  the  rewards  of  salvation." 

Iren^eus,  685  :  "But  others  of  them  seal  (signant  baptize  (?)  ) 
their  disciples,  cauterizing  the  hinder  part  of  the  right  ear." 

Origen,  II,  517  :  "  One  of  the  Seraphim  touched  his  lips  with 
a  live  coal  from  off  the  altar  and  said:  '  Behold  I  have  taken  away 
thine  iniquities.'  This  has  a  mystical  meaning,  and  signifies  that 
every  one,  according  to  his  sin,  who  is  worthy  of  purification,  has 
coals  of  fire  applied  to  his  members.  The  prophet  says,  '  I  have 
unclean  lips,'  therefore  the  coal  is  only  applied  to  his  lips.  But 
I  doubt  whether  we  can  excuse  any  member  of  the  body  from 
needing  the  fire."     519 :  "  Those  like  Isaiah  are  purged  by  fire 


520  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

from  the  altar,  but  others  are  purged  by  another  fire.  .  .  .  The  fire 
of  the  altar  is  the  fire  of  the  Lord.  The  fire  which  is  not  of  the 
altar  is  not  the  fire  of  the  Lord,  but  of  the  sinner,  of  which  it  is 
said :  '  The  worm  shall  not  die,  and  the  fire  shall  not  he  quenched.' " 

Ambrose,  II,  1227 :  '"He  that  toucheth  the  dead  body  of  a  man 
shall  be  unclean.'  Numb.  19:  11.  .  .  .  We  live  among  the  dead. 
Therefore,  the  Author  of  life  says,  '  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead.' 
.  .  .  Whoever  lives  among  sinners  needs  to  be  purified.  Therefoi*e 
when  Isaiah  said  (6:5,  7),  'Woe  is  me,  for  I  have  unclean  lips, 
and  dwell  among  a  people  of  unclean  lips.'  One  of  the  Sera- 
phim immediatel}^  descended  and  touched  his  lips  with  a  burning 
coal,  that  he  might  cleanse  his  unclean  lips.  Baptism  is  not  only 
one  {non  unum  est  baptisma).  That  is  one  which  the  Church 
administers  by  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit  (per  aquam  et  Spiritum 
sanctum),  with  which  it  is  necessary  that  catechumens  be  bap- 
tized. And  there  is  another  baptism  (aliud  hajjtisma)  of  which 
the  Lord  Jesus  says,  Luke  12:10,  'I  have  a  baptism  to  be  bap- 
tized with  that  ye  know  not  of,'  when,  certainly,  he  had  already 
been  baptized  in  the  Jordan ;  but  this  is  the  baptism  of  suffering 
(baptismum  passionis),  with  which,  also,  every  one  is  cleansed  by 
his  own  blood.  There  is,  also,  a  baptism  (baptismum)  at  the  en- 
trance of  Paradise  which  formerly  did  not  exist.  But  after  the 
sinner  was  shut  out  the  fiery  sword  began  to  be,  which  God  placed 
(Gen.  3:24);  which  formerly  was  not,  when  sin  was  not.  Sin 
began  and  baptism  began  {Culpa  ccepit  et  haptismuvi  coepit), 
wherebj'  they  might  be  purified  {purificentur)  who  desired  to 
return  into  Paradise.  That  having  returned  they  may  sa}^,  'We 
have  passed  over  by  fire  and  water'  (Ps.  65  :  12).  Here  by  water 
{per  aquam),  thei'e  by  fire  {per  ignem).  By  water  {per  aquam), 
that  sins  may  be  washed  away  {abluantur),  by  fire  {per  ignem), 
that  they  may  be  burned  away  {exurantur). 

"Who  is  it  that  baptizes  with  this  fire?  Not  a  Presbj'ter,  not 
a  Bishop,  not  John,  who  says,  Matt.  3  :  11,  'I  baptize  you  into 
repentance  {in  psenitentiam) ;'  not  an  Angel,  not  an  Archangel, 
not  Principalities,  nor  Powers  ;  but  He  of  whom  John  sa3's,  'He 
that  coraeth  after  me — He  shall  baptize  you  by  the  Holj-  Spirit 
and  fire.  He  has  his  fan  in  his  hand,  and  he  will  thoroughly 
purge  his  floor ;  and  gather  the  wheat  into  his  garner ;  but  he 
will  burn  the  chaff  with  unquenchable  fire.'  It  is  not  concerning 
this  baptism,  which  is  administered  by  priests  of  the  Church,  that 
the  Lord  himself  testifies,  Matt.  13  :  49,  50,  '  So  shall  it  be  at  the 


FIRE    BAPTISM.  521 

end  of  the  world :  the  angels  shall  come  forth,  and  sever  the 
wicked  from  among  the  just,  and  shall  cast  them  into  the  furnace 
of  fire ;'  since  this  baptism  shall  take  place  after  the  end  of  the 
world,  the  angels  liaving  been  sent  forth  who  shall  separate  the 
good  and  the  bad,  wlien  iniquity  shall  be  burned  up  by  a  furnace 
of  fire  {per  caminum  ignis) ;  that  the  righteous  may  shine  as  the 
sun  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  And  if  any  one  be  holy  as  Peter, 
or  John,  he  shall  be  baptized  by  this  fire  (baptizatur  hoc  igne). 
Therefore  the  great  Baptist  (Baptista  Purifier)  (for  so  I  name 
him,  as  Gabriel  named  him  (Luke  1:  15),  'He  shall  be  great'), 
shall  come,  and  shall  see  many  standing  at  the  entrance  of  Para- 
dise, and  shall  wave  the  sword  turning  every  wa}',  and  sa}'  to 
them  on  the  right,  not  having  heinous  sins,  '  Enter  ye  who  fear 
not  the  fire,'  For  I  foretold  you,  Isaiah  66  :  15,  '  Behold  I  come 
as  fire ;'  and  Ezek.  22 :  21,  'I  will  blow  upon  you  with  the  fire  of 
mine  anger  that  ye  may  melt  away  from  lead  and  iron.'  There- 
fore consuming  fire  must  come  and  burn  up  in  us  the  lead  of 
iniquity,  the  iron  of  transgression,  and  make  us  pure  gold.  But 
because  he  having  been  purged  (pu7'gatus),  needs  there  to  be 
purified  {purificari)  again,  he  will  there,  also,  purify  us,  because 
the  Lord  will  say :  '  Enter  into  my  rest,'  so  that  every  one  of  us 
having  been  burned  {ualus)  by  that  flaming  sword,  but  not  burned 
up  {exuslua)^  having  entered  into  the  blessedness  of  Paradise, 
may  give  thanks  unto  our  Lord.  This  is  one  fire  by  which  invol- 
untary sins  are  burned  up,  which  the  Lord  Jesus  has  prepared 
for  his  servants,  that  he  may  cleanse  them  from  their  long  sojourn- 
ing among  the  dead :  that  is  another  fire  which  he  has  appointed 
for  tlie  devil  and  his  angels,  of  which  he  saj's,  '  Depart  into  ever- 
lasting fire  {in  ignem  in  aeternum).''  " 

Ambrose  III,  173-175:  "The  fire  of  the  temi^le  altar  is  said  to 
have  been  hidden  in  a  pit  by  the  Jews  when  about  to  go  into 
captivity,  and  on  their  return  when  sought  for  was  found  to  be 
changed  into  water.  This  water  when  sprinkled  by  the  order  of 
Nehemiah  upon  the  altar  {Necmias,  sacerdos,  aspey^gere  super 
ligna^jussit)  burst  into  flames  and  consumed  the  sacrifice."  This 
is  said  to  be  a  type  of  Christian  baptism.  Also  the  water  poured 
on  the  sacrifice  by  Elias  {hostiam  suam  tertio  ipse  perfudit  aqua) 
and  the  fire  coming  down  from  heaven  consuming  the  sacrifice,  is 
said  to  be  a  type  of  Christian  baptism.  In  vindication  of  these 
type-fire  baptisms,  appeal  is  made  to  the  fact  that  Christ  baptizes 


522  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire ;  also,  to  the  actual  baptism  by  the 
H0I3'  Spirit  and  firelike  tongues. 

Basil  IY,  132:  "  'He  shall  bai)tize  you  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
fire.'  He  calls  the  trial  which  shall  take  place  in  the  judgment 
{izopoz  {id-riaiLo)  the  baptism  of  fire,  according  to  the  saying  of  the 
Apostle,  '  The  fire  shall  tr3-  the  work  of  every  one  what  it  is.'  " 

Epiphanius  I,  372:  "The  disciples  of  Carpocras  affix  a  seal 
{l\>  zaor/>!)  by  a  red-hot  iron  to  the  right  lobe  of  the  ear  of  those 
deceived  by  them." 

Jerome  V,  730:  '"He  placed  a  fiery  sword  and  Cherubim  to 
guard  the  way  of  the  tree  of  life.'  This  sword  guarding  Paradise 
produces  double  suftering,  both  burning  and  cutting.  Take  an 
illustration.  Physicians  say,  in  order  to  cure  some  diseases,  both 
burning  and  cutting  are  necessary.  To  those  who  suffer  from  an 
old  cancer  they  apply  the  sharpest  knife,  whitened  by  heat,  that 
the  roots  of  the  cancer  may  be  destroyed  by  burning,  and  the 
putrid  flesh  removed  by  cutting,  and  so  the  way  be  prepared  for 
healing  remedies.  Sin  is  our  cancer  for  which  neither  the  simple 
sharpness  of  the  knife,  nor  the  mere  burning  of  the  fire,  is  suffi- 
cient ;  but  both  are  required,  so  that  it  may  be  burned  and  cut. 
Hear  the  Saviour  in  two  passages  indicating  the  need  of  fire  and 
knife.  In  one  place  (Matt.  10)  he  says,  'I  have  not  come  to  send 
peace  upon  earth  but  a  sword;'  and  in  another  (Luke  12),  'I  am 
come  to  send  fire  upon  the  earth.'  Therefore  the  Saviour  brings 
fire  and  sword,  and  baptizes  {haptizat)  those  sins  which  could  not 
be  purified  by  the  purification  of  the  H0I3'  Spirit  {quse  non  jiotue- 
runt  Spirilus  sancli  ]jurificatione  purgdri).^^ 

These  quotations  fairly  present  the  "fire  baptisms"  of  these 
early  writers.  And  if  language  is  capable  of  expressing  the 
opinions  of  men,  then  the  language  of  these  writers  does  express 
as  their  opinion  that  fire  baptisms,  as  related  to  Christian  bap- 
tism, are  neither  dippings  nor  coverings,  but  spiritual  conditions 
effected  by  fire  or  firelike  agencies,  applied  by  touching  or  strik- 
ing^  sjrrinkiing  or  pouring,  etc.,  etc.  And  what  is  thus  true  of 
fire  baptisms,  is  equally  true  of  tears^  baptisms,  and  of  blood 
baptisms,  as  proved  both  by  positive  statements  and  by  the  im- 
possibilities of  any  physical  dippings  or  coverings,  and  the  ab- 
surdity of  their  attempted  imagination.  The  same  is  no  less  true 
of  water  baptisms.  This  conclusion  is  not  so  compulsory  and 
patent  as  in  the  other  baptisms,  because  in  them  there  neither 
were  in  fact,  nor  could  be  by  possibility,  any  dippings  or  cover- 


CLINIC    BAPTISMS.  523 

ings  of  human  beings,  while  there  could  be  a  clipping  and  thus  a 
momentary  covering  in  water ;  and,  in  fact,  there  was  so  in  the 
ordinary  administration  of  water  baptisms.  But  this  momentary 
covering,  by  dipping  or  pressing  down  the  head,  was  neither 
Christian  baptism  nor  any  essential  element  in  it.  There  is  not 
a  Patristic  writer  who  does  not  repudiate  the  idea  that  Christian 
baptism  is  a  dipping  or  covering  in  water.  There  is  not  a  Patristic 
writer  who  does  not  declare  that  Christian  baptism  is  a  purely 
spiritual  condition.  There  ,is  not  a  writer  (holding  distinctively 
Patristic  sentiments)  who  does  not  affirm  that  the  water  effects  no 
baptism  within  the  range  of  its  own  natural  powers  or  qualities^ 
but  effects  a,  spiritual  baptism  hy  reason  of  a  divine  pov:er  com- 
municated to  it  for  this  end,  which  baptism  consists  in  the  remis- 
sion OP  SINS  and  regeneration  op  the  soul.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence whatever  to  show  that  these  writers  regarded  the  momentary 
dipping  of  the  head  into  mere  water  as  an}^  baptism  at  all,  heathen 
anymore  than  Christian.  There  is  the  most  absolute  evidence  to 
show  that  they  regarded  a  baptism  as  necessarily  precluding  any 
designed  (momentary)  limitation  of  time.  That  these  positions 
are  true  will  now  be  further  shown  by  a  reference  to  Clinic  bap- 
tisms. 

Clinic  Baptisms. 

The  theory  has  no  kind  word  to  say  for  Clinic  baptisms.  As 
"baby  sprinkling"  is  an  offence  which  it  abhors,  so  Clinic  sprink- 
ling is  a  sham  which  it  detests.  In  both  these  respects  it  is 
admittedly  and  rejoicingly  out  of  sympathy  with  these  early 
Christians,  as  it  is  equally,  though  denyingly,  out  of  sympathy 
with  them  in  their  estimate  of  water-dipping  in  relation  to  Chris- 
tian baptism. 

The  theorists  hold  Clinic  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  to 
be  worthless,  because  it  effects  no  water-covering,  which  is,  and 
which  only  is,  they  say,  the  baptism  commanded  by  Christ.  The 
Patrists  hold  Clinic  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  to  be  of 
matchless  worth,  because  water-covering  does  not  enter  (as  an 
element)  into  that  Divine  power  by  which  alone  water  has  power 
Christianly  to  baptize,  never  dreaming  of  any  command  from 
Christ  to  cover  in  simple  ivater  as  his  baptism. 

The  theory  antagonizes  Patrism  (no  less  than  the  Bible)  at  all 
points,  as  much  in  the  matter  of  water-dipping  as  in  water-sprink- 
ling, whether  on  "  crying  babies  "  or  dying  Clinics. 


524  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

The  evidence  of  this  will  be  found  in  the  following  quotations, 
in  which  "  Compend  baptisms "  (as  another  name  for  Clinic 
baptisms)  will  also  receive  attention. 

Tertullian  1, 1213:  "We  do  not  find  that  any  of  the  Apostles 
were  baptized  in  the  Lord,  except  Paul.  .  .  .  Some  think,  not 
naturall}',  that  they  were  adequately  baptized  when  in  the  ship 
they  were  sprinkled  (aspersi)  by  the  waves ;_  and  that  Peter  him- 
self was  adequately  baptized  (mersum)  by  entering  the  sea.  But 
as  I  think,  it  is  one  thing  to  be  sprinkled  by  the  violence  of  the 
sea,  and  another  thing  to  be  baptized  by  religious  requirement. 
.  .  .  Whether  the  Apostles  were  washed  (Jtincli)  in  any  way 
whatever  {quoquo  modo)  or  remained  (illoti)  unwashed,  it  is  rash 
to  doubt  concerning  their  salvation,  for  a  first  call  and  familiar 
intercourse  with  Christ  could  confer  Compend  baptism." 

Tertullian  makes  no  objection  to  bai^tism  by  sprinkling ;  but 
he  thinks  it  objectionable  to  substitute  the  sprinkling  from  a  sea 
storm  for  a  religious  ordinance,  in  "  whatsoever  way  "  admin- 
istered. 

Cyprian,  114V  :  "Thou  hast  asked  ( — '  Are  the  sick  not  washed 
but  sprinkled  with  the  saving  water,  to  be  regarded  as  true  Chris- 
tians ?  ' — )  what  is  my  view  of  those  who  have  obtained  the  grace 
of  God  in  sickness  and  debility,  whether,  since  they  have  not  been 
washed  by  the  saving  water,  but  sprinkled  (aqua  salutari  non  loti 
sint,  sed  perfusi),  they  should  be  regarded  as  true  Christians. 
We  think  that  divine  benefits  can  in  nothing  be  diminished  or 
enfeebled,  nor  can  anything  less  be  there  where  what  is  said  of 
divine  benefits  is  received  with  a  full  and  perfect  faith  of  the  giver 
and  receiver.  For  the  pollutions  of  sins  are  not  washed  away 
(aMuuntar)  by  the  saving  sacrament,  as  defilements  of  the  skin 
and  body  are  washed  awaj'  by  a  carnal  and  secular  washing 
{lavaoro),  so  that  an  alkali,  and  other  helps,  both  tub  and  pool, 
are  needed,  with  which  a  little  body  may  be  washed  and  cleansed 
(abliii  et  mundari).  The  heart  (pectuti)  of  the  believer  is  washed 
in  another  way,  the  soul  (mens)  of  man  is  cleansed  in  another 
way,  by  the  merits  of  faith.  In  the  saving  sacraments,  necessity 
urging  and  God  granting  favor,  divine  compends  (divina  com- 
pendia) confer  full  grace  upon  believers.  Nor  should  it  trouble 
any  one  that  the  sick  are  seen  to  be  sprinkled  or  to  be  poured 
upon  (aspcrgi  vel  perfundi)  when  tliey  obtain  divine  grace,  when 
the  Holy  Scripture  says,  Ezek,  30  :  25,  20 :  '  I  will  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  3^0  shall  be  cleansed  from  all  your  unclean- 


CLINIC    BAPTISMS.  525 

ness,  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you,  and  will  give  a 
new  heart  to  you  and  a  new  spirit  within  j'ou  ;'  likewise  in  Numb. 
19  :  8,  12,  13  :  .  .  .  'He  shall  not  be  clean  and  that  soul  shall  be 
cut  off  from  Israel,  because  the  water  of  sprinkling  {aqua  asper- 
sionii^)  was  not  sprinkled  upon  him.'  And  again,  Numb.  8:5,  "T: 
'  The  Lord  spake  to  Moses  saying,  .  .  .  Thus  shalt  thou  purify 
them  ;  thou  shalt  sprinkle  {circumsperges)  them  with  the  water 
of  purification.'  And  again.  Numb.  19:9:  '  The  water  of  sprink- 
ling is  purification.'  Whence  it  appears  that  the  sprinkling  of 
water  (aspersionem  aquse)  possesses  equal  value  with  the  saving 
washing  (salutaris  lavacri),  and  when  these  things  are  done  in 
the  Church,  where  there  is  true  faith  of  the  receiver  and  giver,  all 
things  may  be  established,  completed,  and  perfected  by  the  majesty 
of  God  and  the  truth  of  faith.  But  that  some  call  those  who  have 
obtained  the  grace  of  Christ  by  the  salutary  water  and  true  faith, 
not  Christians  but  Clinics,  I  do  not  know  whence  they  take  the 
name,  unless,  perchance,  they  who  have  read  much  and  the  more 
secret  things  of  Hippocrates  and  Soranus,  have  found  these 
Clinics.  For  I  who  am  acquainted  with  a  Clinic  in  the  Gospel 
know  that  to  that  paralytic,  Ij'ing  for  long  years  on  his  bed,  his 
sickness  was  no  hindrance  to  his  obtaining,  in  the  fullest  measure, 
a  heavenly  vigor,  nor  was  he,  by  divine  favor,  merely  raised  up 
from  his  bed,  but  with  renewed  and  quickened  strength,  he  took 
up  the  bed  itself  And  therefore,  this  is  my  opinion,  that  whoso- 
ever shall  have  obtained  in  the  Church  lawfully  and  rightly  divine 
grace,  by  faith,  should  be  adjudged  a  true  Christian.  Or,  if  any 
one  thinks  that  they  have  obtained  nothing,  because  they  have 
only  been  sprinkled  or  poured  upon  with  the  saving  water,  but 
are  empty  and  void,  let  them  not  be  deceived,  so  as  to  be  bap- 
tized if  they  recover  from  their  sickness.  But  if  they  cannot  be 
baptized  who  have  alread}'  been  sanctified  by  Ecclesiastical  bap- 
tism (ecclesiastico  bapiismo),  why  should  they  be  reproached  for 
their  faith  and  the  favor  of  the  Lord  ?  .  .  .  They  who  are  bap- 
tized in  sickness  (qui  eegri  baptizantur)  receive  no  less  measure 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor  are  more  exposed  to  the  influence  of  evil 
spirits.  The  power  of  the  devil  only  extends  to  the  saving  water, 
there  the  devil  is  overwhelmed  and  man  is  set  free.  .  .  .  Finally, 
experience  shows,  that  those  baptized  in  sickness  (in  aegt'itudine 
baptizati)  under  pressing  necessity,  both  obtain  grace  and  live 
worthily  in  the  Church,  daily  growing  in  grace.  And  on  the  other 
hand  some  of  those  baptized  in  health  (qui  sani  baptizantur)  fall- 


526  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

ing  into  sin  are  troubled  by  the  return  of  an  unclean  spirit,  so 
that  it  is  manifest  that  the  devil  cast  out  by  faith  in  baptism,  if 
faith  afterward  should  fail,  returns.  Unless  it  seem  right  to  ad- 
judge them  baptized  who  have  been  polluted  by  profane  water 
out  of  the  Church  b}'  enemies  and  antichrists,  but  these  who  are 
baptized  in  the  Church  (in  Ecclesia  haptizantur)  maj^  be  regarded 
as  having  obtained  less  of  favor  and  divine  grace;  and  so  great 
honor  be  attributed  to  heretics,  that  those  coming  thence  may  not 
be  asked  whether  they  have  been  washed  or  sprinkled  (utrumne 
loll  sint  an  perfusi)^  whether  Clinics  or  peripatetics,  while  we  de- 
tract from  a  true  faith,  and  rob  ecclesiastical  baptism  of  its  majesty 
and  sanctity." 

There  are  points  in  this  passage  from  Cyprian  which  claim 
special  attention  as  throwing  clear  and  valuable  light  on  our  In- 
quir}':  1.  The  question  has  not  its  origin  in  philology  but  in 
theology.  It  has  not  fiar.ri'^v)  as  its  pivot  on  the  ground  that 
"this  word  expresses  a  divine  command,  has  but  one  meaning 
through  all  Greek  literature,  and  means  a  modal  act  to  be  done, 
to  wit :  dip  and  nothing  but  dip."  So  far  from  this,  the  word  (ian- 
ri%u)  does  not  appear  in  the  inquiry,  and  the  word  which  does  ap- 
pear {lavo^  loti  sunt)  is  admitted  not  to  express  modal  act,  that  on 
which  the  life  of  the  theory  turns.  If  the  question  had  turned  on 
(iar.riXw^  and  the  Interrogator  and  Eespondent  had  believed  (as 
we  are  told  that  they  did  believe)  that  this  word  expressed  modal 
act  (dip),  and  embodied  a  divine  command,  then  the  question, 
"Are  sprinkled  men  dipped  men  ?"  could  never  have  been  asked; 
but  neither  of  these  parties  believed  that  God  had  commanded  a 
modal  act,  or  that  /SaTrrt'Cw  expressed  a  modal  act,  and  therefore 
they  substitute  for  it  a  word  (lavo)  in  which  there  is  no  modal  act 
of  command,  and  philology  becomes  a  vanishing  quantity.  The 
question  is  pureW  theological.  There  is  no  reference  to  the  mean- 
ing of  a  word,  to  dip  or  to  cover ;  but  to  the  divine  power  of  water 
to  change  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  soul.  "  Can  baptizing 
water,  which  when  used  for  washing  the  whole  body  makes  a  true 
Christian,  also,  make  a  true  Christian  when  it  is  sprinkled  or 
poured  upon  the  body?"  this  was  the  theological  question;  2. 
The  answer  is  as  empty  of  pliilology  and  as  full  of  theology  as  is 
the  question.  It  declares  that  baptizing  water  impregnated  with 
the  Spirit  washes  spiritually,  and  not  as  the  body  is  washed  with 
soap,  and  tub,  and  pooL  It  is  not  the  water  which  washes,  but  a 
divine  power  in  the  water.     The  impregnated  water  not  by  its 


CLINIC    BAPTISMS.  527 

quantity,  nor  by  its  manner  of  use,  but  by  its  quality — vis,  virtus, 
duvaiuq — confers  the  full  grace  of  the  Spirit — remits  sin,  regener- 
ates the  soul,  expels  daemons,  drowns  Satan,  makes  a  "  true  Chris- 
tian;" 3.  The  sprinkling  of  baptizing  water  has  no  more  power  to 
dip,  or  to  cover  than  any  other  water ;  and  Cyprian  does  not  say 
that  sprinkling  dips  or  covers,  for  he  was  not  a  simpleton,  but  he 
does  say  again  and  again,  that  sprinkling  baptizes.  He  applies 
this  word  alike  to  the  sick  and  their  mode  of  baptism  and  to  the 
well  and  their  mode  of  baptism — "  qui  eegri  baptizantur — qui  sani 
BAPTiZANTUR."  Sprinkling  water  does  Cyprianl}'  baptize  ;  sprink- 
ling water  does  under  no  condition  dip ;  therefore,  Cyprian's 
baptize  is  not  dip;  4.  As  Cyprian  calls  baptism  by  sprinkling 
"Compend  baptism,"  and  "Ecclesiastical  baptism,"  the  theory 
talks  wildly,  in  the  use  of  words  without  knowledge,  about  the 
unrealness  and  worthlessness  of  such  baptisms.  All  such  might 
find  it  to  their  advantage  to  read,  on  this  point,  the  gentle  phil- 
ippic of  President  Halley  addressed  to  Dr.  Carson,  or  better  still 
to  read  the  originals,  and  there  learn  that  Compend  baptism 
always  includes  the  baptism  whatever  else  may  be  absent,  and 
that  Ecclesiastical  baptism  includes  that  sine  qua  nan  (the  Holy 
Spirit)  without  which  the  presence  of  all  other  things  is  worthless 
to  effect  Patristic  baptism. 

This  answer  of  Cyprian  declaring  that  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
equally  with  the  washing  of  the  whole  bod}',  effected  Christian 
baptism  was  so  convincing  that  a  like  question,  so  far  as  I  know, 
never  emerged  for  a  thousand  years.  In  these  latter  days  a  very 
different  question  (with  some  verbal  similarities)  has  emerged  for 
the  first  time  since  the  origin  of  Christianity,  in  which  by  the  in- 
vocation of  philology  (seen  through  a  glass  darkly)  to  prove 
that  iSa-ri'^u}  means  "  dip  and  nothing  but  dip,"  that  it  represents 
a  divine  command  to  dip  into  water,  and  that  early  Greek  Chris- 
tian writers  believed  (?)  these  things,  it  is  sought  to  establish  the 
remarkable  proposition,  that  "  to  sprinkle  is  not  to  dip,"  and 
therefore  one  sprinkled  with  water  is  not  dipped  into  water,  and 
therefore,  living  in  disobedience  to  God,  and  therefore,  is  not  a 
"  true  Christian,"  and  therefore,  must  not  come  to  the  table  of 
the  Lord.  Whenever  the  friends  of  this  theory  shall  show  out- 
side of  the  Bible,  that  /JaTrrt'Cw  means  "  to  dip,"  or  inside  of  the 
Bible  that  it  means  "  to  dip  into  water,''''  or  anywhere  in  the  Pa- 
tristic writings  that  they  believed  either  o%  these  propositions, 
then,  they  will  deserve  an  attentive  audience.     But  until  then 


528  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

the  theory  must  be  set  down  as  among  the  latest  and  the  chiefest 
of  "  the  novelties  in  our  theology  "  emerging  for  the  first  time  in 
the  history  of  Christianity  after  the  lapse  of  a  thousand  and  a 
half  thousand  years.  Let  it  be  understood,  that  the  question  of 
fact  as  to  the  customary  covering  of  the  body  in  water  is  not  now 
at  issue  (any  more  than  in  the  question  propounded  to  Cyprian), 
but  the  ground  and  the  value  of  that  fact. 

Tertul.  Ill,  1203:  The  passage  about  to  be  cited  on  "  Com- 
pend  baptism  "  is  from  an  anonymous  writer  on  Rebaptism  in 
the  same  volume  with  that  of  the  passage  from  Cyprian,  and  con- 
taining a  portion  of  Tertullian's  works.  After  referring  to  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  granted  by  the  Lord  to  the  paralytic  and  to 
the  woman  that  was  "a  sinner,"  he  adds:  "  From  all  which  it  is 
shown,  that  hearts  are  purified  by  faith  {fide  mundari),  but  souls 
are  cleansed  by  the  Spirit  {Spiritu  ahlui)  ;  but  moreover  bodies 
are  washed  by  water  {per  aquam  lavari),  also,  by  blood  {sanguine), 
we  come  more  speedily  to  the  rewards  of  salvation,  by  Compend 
{per  Compendium). ^^  Here  are  four  baptisms  bij  faith  {fide)  by 
the  Spirit  {Spiritu)  6y  water  {per  aquam)  and  by  blood  {sanguine), 
in  every  one  of  which  (faith.  Spirit,  water,  blood)  is  declared  to 
be  an  agency,  and  the  mode  of  application  in  some  instances 
(faith.  Spirit),  a  vanishing  quantity,  and  in  others  (water,  blood), 
indifferent,  or  as  diverse  as  any  two  modes  could  well  be.  While 
the  Baptism  of  blood,  especially  referred  to  as  a  "  Compend  bap- 
tism," is  here  and  everywhere  referred  to  as  the  most  perfect  and 
glorious  of  all  baptisms,  instead  of  (as  the  theory  would  have  it) 
a  non  est. 

Basil  III,  436  :  "Why  dost  thou  delay  that  baptism  {zd  ,3dn- 
Ttffim)  may  be  to  thee  the  gift  of  a  fever?  When  thou  mayest  be 
unable  to  speak  the  saving  words,  or,  perhaps,  to  hear  clearly,  or 
to  raise  thy  hands  to  heaven ;  or  to  stand  upon  thy  feet,  or  to 
bend  the  knees  for  prayer."  .  .  . 

Was  such  a  one,  unable  to  speak  or  hear  or  stand  or  kneel, 
dipped  into  water?  He  received  "the  baptism  {to  i3d7:Tt(T/j.a), 
without  an  appended  "Clinic,"  or  "  Compend,"  or  "  Ecclesiastic." 
Will  this  auswer  for  a  baptism  by  sprinkling,  a  baptism  not  phys- 
ical, a  spiritual  baptism,  effected  by  spiritual  power  given  to  the 
water?  Basil  the  Great  had  some  knowledge  of  Greek.  He 
knew  the  meaning  of  the  Patristic  to  ^dTZTitrna. 

AuousTiN  VI,  40^:  "  Catechumens  afllicted  by  disease  or  casu- 
alty, so  that  while  they  still  live  are  yet  unable  to  ask  for  bap- 


CLINIC    BAPTISMS.  529 

tism   (baptismum)  or  to   answer  questions,  should  be  baptized 
{baptize  ntur).'^ 

AuGUSTiN  IX,  121:  "A  man  may  wickedly  hate  his  enemy, 
yet,  alarmed  by  the  sudden  danger  of  death,  he  asks  for  baptism 
(baptismum),  which  he  receives  with  so  much  haste,  that  the 
danger  hardly  admits  the  necessary  asking  of  a  few  questions,  so 
that  that  hatred  may  be  driven  from  his  heart,  even  if  it  be  known 
to  him  who  baptizes  (baptizanii)  him.  Certainly  these  things  do 
not  cease  to  occur  both  among  us  and  among  them  (Donatists)." 

EusEBius  II,  621  :  "Novatian,  relieved  by  the  Exorcists, 
having  fallen  into  a  dangerous  disease,  and  thinking  that  he  was 
about  to  die,  having  been  poured  upon  {-ept-^ueetq)  in  the  bed 
where  he  lay,  received  (eXa^sv) ;  if  indeed  it  be  proper  to  sa}'  that 
such  a  one  received  {rw  towutov  d^(pivai).  Nor,  when  he  re- 
covered, did  he  attain  those  other  things  which  it  is  necessary  to 
receive  according  to  the  rule  of  the  church,  and  to  be  sealed 
{afpaytfjOvjvai)  by  the  Bishop.  And  not  receiving  this  how  could 
he  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  .  .  .  Through  the  favor  of  the 
bishop,  laying  hands  upon  him,  he  was  made  a  presbyter,  when 
all  the  clergy  and  many  of  the  laity  opposed,  because  it  was  not 
lawful  that  one  poured  upon  {TzzpiyuOivra)^  as  he  was,  upon  a  sick- 
bed, should  be  received  into  the  rank  of  the  clergy." 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  discredit  this  Clinic  baptism  as 
unreal  in  itself  and  invalid  in  the  judgment  of  those  interested  in 
it  at  the  time.  The  attempt  proceeds  on  misconception  of  the 
case.  Parties  interested  in  this  transaction  did  file  exceptions  to 
it,  but  on  no  ground  common  with  the  theory.  The  first  and 
main  exception  taken  related  to  the  moral  character  of  Novatian. 
This  is  expressed  by  the  derogatory  phrase — "  such  a  one  row 
Towurmy  They  believed  him  to  be  a  bad  man,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  devil  both  before  and  after  his  baptism,  and  there- 
fore said,  "  Being  poured  upon  he  received,  if  such  a  one  could 
receive.'^''  Receive  what  ?  A  dipping  ?  So  the  theory  must 
make  them  speak  ;  but  these  men  were  not  idiots,  and  knowing 
that  he  had  received  water  by  pouring,  they  did  not  express  a 
doubt  as  to  whether  he  had  in  a  pouring  received  a  dipping. 
The  theory  believes,  that  a  bad  man  dipped  into  water  by  one  of 
their  ministers  receives  as  perfect  a  baptism  as  the  greatest  saint. 
These  early  Christians  had  no  such  faith.  They  did  not  believe 
that  Simon  Magus,  however  the  water  was  used,  "  received  "  anj' 
more  than  Novatian.     The  question  with  them  was  not  whether  a 

34 


530  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

pouring  upon  with  water  or  a  clipping  into  water  had  been  "  re- 
ceived;" but  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  "received."  This 
was  the  sine  qua  non  with  their  baptism  ;  and  it  was  just  here 
that  a  doubt  whether  "  such  a  one  could  receive,"  was  expressed. 
This  exception  was  intensified  by  another  (in  the  same  direction, 
of  bad  character)  namely :  that  he  had  not  gone  to  the  bishop 
after  his  recover}^,  to  be  "sealed;"  when,  again,  was  pressed  the 
point  of  difficulty — "How  could  he  receive  the  Holy  SpiritV 
Exception,  also,  was  taken  to  his  being  received  into  the  ministry  ; 
not  because  water  had  been  poured  upon  and  therefore  he  was 
not  baptized  ;  but  because  this  had  been  done  "on  a  sick-bed," 
and  the  rule  of  the  Church  foi'bade  any  such  from  being  inducted 
into  the  ministry.  But  why  ?  Because  such  were  not  hajotized  ? 
Such  a  reason  would  have  been  the  most  absolute  self-stultifica- 
tion of  the  Church,  which  declared,  through  a  millenar^^  of  years, 
that  she  did  thus  administer  a  perfect  baptism  ;  but  the  Chui'Ch 
objected  to  the  postponement  of  baptism  until  death  for  various 
reasons  and,  as  a  deterring  penalty,  denied  to  such  access  to  the 
ministry.  The  theory  reverses  this :  men  not  dipped  (only 
poured  upon)  are  received  to  all  the  rights  of  the  ministry  but 
excluded  from  the  rights  of  private  members,  at  the  communion 
table.  No  exception  was  taken  to  Novatian's  baptism  because 
the  water  was  poured  upon  him.  This  is  evident  from  the  narra- 
tive and  from  the  fact,  that  nowhere  in  the  Patristic  writings  can 
an  objection  be  found  to  a  Christian  baptism  grounded  on  the 
fact,  that  the  water  used  in  it  was  by  pouring.  On  the  contrary, 
Cyprian  formally  defends  sprinkling  and  pouring  upon  the  sick 
as  true  and  perfect  baptism.  Some  objections  to  Clinic  baptism, 
not  as  to  form  and  worth  but  as  to  time  and  circumstance,  are 
thus  presented  bjr 

CiiiiYsosTOM  II  {pars  prior),  223:  "I  not  onl}'-  declare  you 
happy,  but  I  praise  3ronr  wisdom  because  you  have  come  for  bap- 
tism ((pcuT{(Tfj.aTt),  not  like  more  careless  men  at  the  last  breathings 
of  life,  but  promptly  as  wise  servants  read^'  with  good  will  to 
obey  the  Lord,  submitting  the  neck  of  the  soul  with  gentleness 
and  desire  to  the  yoke  of  Christ.  For  although  the  gifts  of  grace 
rd  TijT  /dpcTo':  are  the  same  to  you  and  to/hem  baptized  {ixuarayu)- 
youfiivotq)  at  death,  yet  as  to  will  and  preparation  the  things  are 
not  the  same.  For  they  receive  (the  gifts  of  grace  rd  rT^t;  j^dptroq) 
in  the  bed,  but  you  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  the  common 
mother  of  us  all ;  they  grieving  and  weeping,  but  you  joyous  and 


CLINIC    BAPTISMS.  531 

happy ;  they  groaning  but  you  praising ;  they  stupefied  by  great 
fever,  but  j^ou  filled  with  great  spiritual  delight.  Consequently, 
here,  all  things  are  harmonious  with  the  gift  (t^  Swpsa)^  but 
there  all  things  are  discordant  with  the  gift  (t^  diopea) ;  for  those 
about  to  be  baptized  {!W(7r ayiuyouiiivcov)^  and  children,  and  wife, 
and  friends,  and  servants,  are  weeping  and  lamenting.  .  .  .  But 
I  have  not  yet  added  the  chiefest  of  the  evils ;  for  in  the  midst 
of  the  lamentations  and  preparations,  oftentimes,  the  soul,  leav- 
ing the  body  desolate,  has  fled  away,  and  when  present  in  man}'^ 
cases  profits  nothing.  .  .  .  For  he  who  is  about  to  be  baptized 
(^luTt^fTOac)  lies  like  a  log  or  a  stone,  knowing  nothing,  hearing 
nothing,  answering  nothing,  differing  nothing  from  a  dead  man : 
of  what  profit  is  the  baptism  (r^?  ixotTTayajyiaq)  in  such  insen- 
sibility ?" 

It  was  in  view  of  such  a  condition  of  things  as  here  portraj^ed 
by  Chr^'sostom  that  the  Church  urged  prompt  baptism  in  health 
and  opposed  its  delaj^  until  death  ;  but  believing  it  necessary  to 
salvation  it  was  administered,  in  ordinary  circumstances,  to  the 
sick  and  the  dying  in  the  full  conviction  of  its  reality  and  efficacy 
as  a  baptism.  Whether  the  efficacy  of  the  water  reached  to  the 
souls  of  the  dying  who  lay  "  as  a  log  or  a  stone  "  was  an  unsettled 
point.  But  from  the  days  of  Cj'prian  it  had  been  settled  that 
the  divinel}^  impregnated  water  poured  or  sprinkled  on  the  body, 
did  in  the  truest  and  fullest  manner  initiate,  illuminate,  baptize, 
so  that  the  Clinic,  equally  with  the  Peripatetic,  did  receive  not  a 
substitute  for  but  identically  tlie  same  baptisma ;  the  same  rd  r^? 
•^dpiToq  (elsewhere  (226)  to  kourpbv  r^?  ^dpiToq),  which  consisted  in 
a  spiritual  renovation,  =the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  regeneration 
of  the  soul.  A  ph3'sical  baptisma  has  no  place  in  Patrism.  Nor 
is  it  true,  that  a  dipping  (a  designed  momentary  covering  in 
water)  is  an}''  more  truly  a  physical  [id-Ti(rp.a^  than  is  a  pouring  or 
a  sprinkling.  The  essential  element  of  duration  without  limita- 
tion of  time,  is  wanting,  and  consequently  the  element  of  power 
and  controlling  influence  which  inheres  in  iSanri^io  as  compared 
with  jSdnro)  is  wanting,  just  as  much  as  in  pouring  or  sprinkling. 
But  as  ,3d-T(u  loses  its  feebleness  and  changes  its  nature  amid 
liquids  to  which  a  power  to  dye,  to  color,  has  been  imparted 
(which  power  may  be  developed  through  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
or  dipping),  so  /JaTrrt'^w,  among  liquids  (water,  tears,  blood,  etc.) 
to  which  is  imparted  a  divine  power  assumes  a  new  nature,  and 
represents  that  power  as  developed  b}'  dipping  (which  in  simple 


532  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

water  does  not  baptize),  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  by  either  of  which 
(according  to  Patrism)  it  is  equally  developed,  but,  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  is  equally  symbolized  by  either  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling (dipping  being  excluded  by  unbroken  silence),  while  the 
divine  power  to  effect  the  ^a-Kxtaiia  (always  and  solelj"^  spiritual)  is 
limited  in  the  most  absolute  manner  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

This  passage  of  Chrysostom  explains  why  Clinics  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  ministry.  It  was  not  because  such  were  not 
baptized  or  not  fully  baptized ;  but  because  they  acted  against 
the  teachings  of  the  Church  by  their  dela}',  and  it  became  ques- 
tionable whether  it  was  not  the  fear  of  death,  rather  than  repent- 
ance and  faith,  which  made  them  seek  for  baptism. 

Ambrose  IV,  471 :  "There  are  not  wanting  sick  persons  who 
are  baptized,  almost  daily  Non  desint,  qui  prope  quotidie  bap- 
tizantur  segri.'''' 

This  statement  of  Ambrose  shows  that  baptisms  by  sprinkling 
and  pouring  (not  quasi  or  e  gratia  ba^^tisms  but  baptisms  regai'ded 
as  real  and  perfect  in  nature  as  baptisms  under  any  form)  were 
administered  almost  daily  century  after  century.  In  none  of 
these  baptisms  was  there  or  could  there  be  a  phj'sical  water  cov- 
ering, and  therefore  in  such  Christian  baptisms  as  a  water  cover- 
ing was  found  the  baptism  could  not  be  in  this  feature,  otherwise 
where  it  had  no  existence  there  could  be  no  baptism.  These 
diverse  cases  to  which,  equally,  the  term  baptism  is  applied  is 
alone  and  is  perfectly  explained  by  the  truth  that  the  Patristic 
baptisma  was  no  physical  covering,  but  a  spiritual  condition 
effected  by  water  (irrespective  of  modal  use)  impregnated  with  a 
divine  power. 

Sprinkling  Baptisms. 

As  Clinic  baptisms  were  by  sprinkling  I  will  adduce  other  cases 
of  baptism  by  sprinkling  to  show  that  they  are  not  limited  to 
Clinics. 

Tertullian  I,  1204:  "But  the  nations  without  the  knowledge 
of  spiritual  things,  attribute  the  same  eflicacy  to  their  idols,  but 
with  unmarried  (viduis  empty)  waters,  they  deceive  themselves. 
Thc}^  everywhere  purify  villas,  houses,  temples,  and  whole  cities 
by  sprinkling  water,  and  are  washed  {tinguntur)  in  the  spectacles 
of  Apollo  and  Eleusis.  .  .  .  Here  we  see  the  work  of  the  devil 
emulating  the  things  of  God,  since  he  practices  even  baptism 
among  his  own  people." 


SPRINKLING    BAPTISMS.  633 

These  "  unmarried,  empty,  waters  "  point  to  the  all-controlling 
element  in  the  interpretation  of  Patristic  baptism,  namel}^,  the  im- 
partation  of  a  divine  quality  to  the  water  by  which  it  receives^ 
POWER  to  baptize.  If  Patristic  baptism  were  a  water  covering, 
the  idea  that  water  needed  a  new  quality  in  order  to  have  power 
TO  COVER,  would  be  lunacy  ;  but  without  such  superadded  power, 
they  declare,  that  water  cannot  Christianly  baptize,  therefore,  if 
these  writers  are  not  lunatics.  Patristic  baptism  is  not  a  water 
covering.  TertuUian  announces  this  new  quality  as  communi- 
cated to  the  waters  in  the  following  terms :  "  Supervenit  enim 
statim  Spiritus  de  coelis,  et  aqnis  superest,  sanctificans  eas  de 
semetipso,  et  ita  sanctificatae  vim  sanctificandi  combibunt.  For 
immediately  the  Spirit  comes  from  heaven  and  brooding  upon  the 
waters,  sanctifies  them  by  Himself,  and  so  having  been  sanctified 
they  imbibe  the  power  of  sanctifying."  The  same  thing  is  re- 
ferred to  in  the  following  lines  quoted  in  a  note : 

"Sanctus  in  hunc  coelo  descendit  Spiritus  amnem, 
Coelestique  sacras  fonte  rauritat  aquas." 

If  any  object  to  the  translation  of  ^'' tinguntur''^  by  washed, 
purified,  they  are  referred  to  Ovid,  "  Ignibus  et  sparsa  tingere 
corpus  aqua."  And  for  a  new  power  being  communicated  to  water, 
enabling  it  to  exercise  such  power  toward  other  objects,  the  same 
Classic  says  :  "  Et  incerto  fontem  medicamine  tixit.''^  A  dipping 
has  nothing  to  do  with  tingo  in  either  of  these  cases. 

Tertull.  II,  136 :  "  Where  are  those  whom  Menander  has 
sprinkled  (^perfudit)  ?  Or  those  whom  he  has  mersed  into  his 
Styx  {in  Sty  gam  suam  mersit)  ?" 

The  Annotator  remarks :  "  Mersion  (mersio),  perfusion  (per- 
fusio)  or  aspersion  {aspersio)  belong,  equally,  to  Christian  bap- 
tism. The  one  by  rule  {ex  ordine)  for  the  well ;  the  other  by 
necessity  {ex  necessitate)  for  the  sick.  ...  It  should  be  observed, 
that  it  was  usual  in  baptism  both  to  sprinkle  and  to  cover  {bap- 
tismo  perfundi  solitos  simul  et  mergi).  Sprinkling  or  pouring 
{perfusio)  indicated  the  washing  from  sins  {lavationeni  pecca- 
torum) ;  covering  {mersio)  death  and  burial,  codeath  and  coburial, 
with  Christ." 

Iren^us,  664  :  "  But  some  of  them  say,  to  conduct  to  the  water 
{^7:1  TO  vdcup)  is  unnecessary,  and  mixing  together  oil  and  water  (with 
some  words,  such  as  we  have  mentioned),  they  sprinkle  {km^dkkovai) 
it  upon  the  head  of  the  baptized  {reXeioufiivajv).^^ 


534  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

These  were  heretics ;  but  they  were  not  charged  with  heresy 
because  they  baptized  by  sprinkling. 

Ambrose  I,  875:  "Sprinkle  me  with  hyssop  and  I  shall  be 
clean  ;  wash  me  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow"  (Ps.  51 :  10). 
"  He  asks  to  be  cleansed  by  hyssop  according  to  the  Law ;  he 
desires  to  be  washed  according  to  the  Gospel.  He  who  wished  to 
be  cleansed  by  typical  baptism  (typico  baptismate)  was  sprinkled 
with  the  blood  of  the  lamb  by  a  bunch  of  hyssop." 

Ambrose  IV,  829:  "He  sprinkled  the  leper  seven  times,  with 
cedar  wood,  and  scarlet  wool,  and  hyssop,  and  he  was  rightly 
cleansed.  .  .  .  By  the  cedar  wood  the  Father,  by  the  hyssop  the 
Son,  by  the  scarlet  wool  (which  has  the  brightness  of  fire)  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  represented.  He  who  wished  to  be  rightly  cleansed 
was  sprinkled  by  these  three ;  because  no  one  can  be  cleansed 
from  the  leprosy  of  sin  by  the  water  of  baptism,  except  by  the 
invocation  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  .  .  . 
We  are  represented  by  the  leper." 

Hilary  I,  338:  "Ziphaai  in  Hebrew  signifies  what  we  call 
sprinkling  of  the  face  {oris  adspersio).  But  sprinkling  according 
to  the  Law  was  the  cleansing  from  sin  (emundatio  peccatorum). 
The  sprinkling  of  blood  purifying  the  people  through  faith.  Of 
this  sprinkling  David  speaks :  '  Sprinkle  me  with  hyssop  and  I 
shall  be  clean,'  representing  the  sacrament  of  the  future  sprink- 
ling of  the  blood  of  the  Lord." 

Jerome  V,  341:  "Ezek.  36  :  16,  et  seq.  'I  will  pour  out  or 
sprinkle  {effundam  sive  aspergam)  upon  you  clean  water,  and  ye 
shall  be  cleansed  from  all  j'our  defilements.  And  I  will  give  you 
a  new  heart  and  I  will  put  a  right  spirit  within  you.'  ...  I  will 
pour  out  the  clean  water  of  saving  baptism.  .  .  .  And  it  is  to  be 
considered,  that  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit  may  be  given  by 
the  pouring  out  and  sprinkling  of  water  (jjer  effusionem  et  asper- 
sionem  aquae).  .  .  .  And  I  will  no  more  pour  out  upon  them  the 
waters  of  saving  baptism,  but  the  waters  of  doctrine  and  of  the 
word  of  God." 

Augustine  IX,  202:  "In  the  Epistle  which  Cyprian  wrote  to 
Magnus  when  asked  concerning  the  Baptism  of  the  dipped  and 
the  sprinkled,  whether  there  was  an}'  difference  (de  Baptismo  tinc- 
torum  et  perfusorum^  utrum  aliquid  interesset)  ?" 

This  form  of  stating  the  question  addressed  to  Cyprian  conclu- 
sively settles  the  point,  that  the  mode  of  using  the  water  as  be- 
tween dipping,  or  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  was  not  involved.     For 


POURINa    BAPTISM.  535 

to  ask  whether  there  was  any  difference  between  dipping,  pouring, 
sprinliling,  is  absurd.  It  is  no  less  conclusively  settled,  that 
"  Baptismo  "  as  used  by  Augustine  does  not  mean  a  dipping.  It 
is  beyond  all  possibility  that  Augustine  should  say,  "  Cyprian  was 
asked  whether  there  was  any  difference  in  the  dipping  of  the  dipped 
and  the  sprinkled."  And  it  is  as  certainly  settled,  that  "  Baptismo  " 
expresses  the  spiritual  effect  of  the  impregnated  water  in  the  soul, 
and  whether  there  is  any  difference  in  that  effect  when  such  water 
is  used  by  dipping,  or  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  is  asked. 

If  Patristic  writers  wrote  to  be  understood,  they  believed  that 
sprinkling  and  pouring  baptizing  water  did  baptize ;  but  sprink- 
ling and  pouring  no  kind  of  water  can  dip,  therefore  the  Patristic 
"  baptize  "  cannot  be  dip. 

As  there  is  an  essential  relation  between  Sprinkling  baptisms 
and  Pouring  baptisms  I  will  point  out  one  of  this  latter  class  in 
further  proof  of  the  point  before  us,  namely,  that  baptisms  are 
not  physical  covei'ings. 

Pouring  Baptism. 

In  3  Kings  18  :  34  (Sept.) :  Elijah  commands  four  water-pots 
of  water  to  be  taken  and  poured  upon  (kTrtyrieze)  the  sacrifice  laid 
upon  the  newly  made  altar.  This  command  he  I'epeats  again  and 
again,  and  it  is  done  thrice.  This  water  pouring  without  a  water 
covering  is  declared  by  Origen,  Basil  M.,  Gregory  N.,  and  Am- 
brose, to  be  a  Baptism,  as  shown  by  the  following  quotations : 

Origen  IV,  241:  "But  why  is  it  believed  that  the  coming  Elias 
will  baptize  (ISanrcffeiv),  when  he  did  not  baptize  {i^a-Kriadvruq)  what 
needed  cleansing  {Xwrpou)  upon  the  wood  of  the  altar,  in  the  time 
of  Ahab,  that  it  might  be  burned  when  the  Lord  revealed  himself 
by  fire  ?  For  he  commanded  the  priests  to  effect  this  baptism. 
How,  then,  is  he  coming  to  baptize  {iSanri^ecv)  who  did  not  then 
baptize  ?  Christ  does  not  baptize  with  water,  but  his  disciples ; 
but  he  reserves  for  himself  the  baptizing  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
fire." 

The  facts  in  this  case  are  so  simple,  so  clear,  so  unmixed  with 
anything  which  could  admit  of  "  darkening  counsel  by  words  with- 
out knowledge,"  that  it  is  a  matter  of  universal  admission,  that 
here  was  a  case  of  baptism  (so  declared  by  one  of  the  most  learned 
Christian  Greeks  that  ever  lived)  and  in  this  baptism  there  was 
no  physical  covering,  although  the  baptism  was  by  water. 

In  this  transaction  there  was,  also,  a  kuurpdv ;  but  there  was  no 


536  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

"bathing-place,"  no  "water  for  a  bath,"  no  "laver,"  but  there 
was  a  cleansing  from  ceremonial  impurit}^  for  the  revelation  of 
the  Lord  by  fire.  And  it  was  this  cleansing  (^kourpdv)  which  was 
the  baptism  {(id-Kriaiia)  ;  the  one  word  taken  as  the  full  equivalent 
of  the  other,  here  and  times  without  number  elsewhere,  by  these 
early  writers. 

Basil  M.  Ill,  428:  "Elias  has  shown  the  power  of  baptism 
(t^v  }ayhv  too  fianriaiiaToq)  hy  burning  the  sacrifice  upon  the  altar 
of  burnt  offerings,  not  by  means  of  fire,  but  b}^  means  of  water. 
For  altliough  the  nature  of  fire  is  opposed  to  that  of  water,  yet 
when  the  water  is  mystically  poured,  thrice,  upon  the  altar,  the 
fire  begins  and  kindles  a  flame,  as  though  it  were  oil." 

The  specialt}'^  of  this  passage  of  Basil  as  compared  with  that 
of  Origen  is,  its  bringing  out  a  new  quality  given  to  the  water 
enabling  it  to  burn  when  mystically  poured  (fj-uffzucuq  xars/oOrj) 
thrice.  Does  any  one  doubt  that  an  effect  is  here  ascribed  to 
water  be3^ond  and  inconsistent  with  its  natural  power,  by  reason 
of  a  new  and  diverse  quality  imparted  to  it  ?  But  it  is  just  such 
a  quality  which  is  declared  to  be  imparted  to  baptizing  water, 
giving  it  a  power,  alien  from  its  own  nature,  to  baptize  (not  to 
cover,  this  it  has  by  inherent  quality,  but)  to  cleanse  from,  "to 
burn  up"  sin  in  the  soul.  The  "three  mystical  pourings'^  ally 
the  transaction  with  the  customary  "  three  mystical  di2ypings  " 
which  efiect  the  "  one  Baptism  "  purifying  the  soul.  A  dipping 
is  no  more  trul}^  a  baptism  than  is  a  pouring.  And  the  Patrists 
no  more  imagined  a  dipping  to  be  a  baptism,  or  the  three  dip- 
pings to  be  the  one  Christian  baptism,  than  Origen  imagined  the 
three  pourings  to  be  the  Carmel  baptism.  The  baptisma  was  a 
"result,  condition,  effect,"  of  a  power  attributed  to  the  water  by 
special  divine  gift,  developed  in  the  one  case  by  pouring  and  in 
the  other  case  by  dipping ;  but  in  neither  case  being  the  dipping 
or  the  pouring,  nor  in  anywise  dependent  upon  the  one  form  or 
the  other.  The  baptizing  power  was  wholly  and  solely  in  the  im- 
pregnated water. 

Gregory  Naz.  II,  421:  "I  have  three  overflowings  (UixXijiren;) 
with  which  I  will  purify  (/.aOcsfjoxno)  the  sacrifice,  kindling  fire  by 
water  (oouti),  which  is  most  paradoxical ;  and  casting  down  the 
prophets  of  shame  using  the  poiver  of  the  mystery." 

Gregory  is  writing  upon  baptism,  and  especially  magnifying,  to 
those  about  to  be  baptized,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  In  refer- 
ence to  this  doctrine  and  its  power  he  says:  "I  have  three  stones 


POURING    BAPTISM.  537 

which  I  will  sling  against  the  enemy.  I  have  thi-ee  breathings 
with  which  I  will  give  life  to  the  dead.  I  have  three  overflowings 
with  which  (alq)  I  will  purify,"  etc.  The  "three  stones,"  the 
"  three  breathings,"  the  "  three  overflowings,"  are  identified  with 
the  Trinity,  from  which  they  are  represented  as  obtaining  a  power 
not  inherent  in  the  nature  of  a  stone,  or  a  breathing,  or  an  over- 
flowing, and  by  which  they  are  made  divine  agencies  to  accomplish 
what  otherwise  they  were  incompetent  or  unadapted  to  accom- 
plish. The  stone,  the  breathing,  the  overflowing,  were  not  receiving 
elements  into  which  Goliath,  "the  dead,"  the  altar,  were  to  pass, 
but  vehicles  through  which  divine  power  was  displayed.  The 
transaction  on  Carmel  is  identified  by  Gregory  with  Christian 
baptism,  and  its  water  is  made  an  agency,  and  not  a  passive 
covering  element. 

Ambrose  I,  t27  :  "Baptism  like  a  fire  consumes  sins,  for  Christ 
baptizes  by  fire  and  the  Spirit.  You  read  this  type  in  the  Books 
of  the  Kings  (3  Kings  18:34),  where  Elias  put  wood  upon  the 
altar,  and  said  that  they  should  throw  (mitterent)  over  it  water 
from  water-pots  (de  hydriis)  ;  and  when  the  water  flowed  Elias 
prayed,  and  fire  came  down  from  heaven.  Thou,  0  man !  art 
upon  the  altar,  who  shalt  be  cleansed  (ablueris)  by  water,  whose 
sin  is  burned  up,  that  thy  life  may  be  renewed.  .  .  .  John  baptized 
into  repentance  (in  pcenitentiam),and  all  Judea  gathered  together. 
Christ  baptizes  by  the  Spirit  (in  S2nritu);  Christ  gives  grace,  and 
men  reluctantly  assemble.  Elias  showed  but  a  type  of  baptism 
(typum  baptismaiis)  and  opened  heaven,  which  had  been  shut  for 
three  years  and  six  months.  How  much  greater  blessings  belong 
to  the  real  baptism  (veritatis).^^ 

Ambrose  identifies  the  baptism  of  Elias,  and  the  baptism  of 
Christ,  as  type  and  antitype.  It  is  absurd  to  sa}'^  that  one  thing 
is  the  type  of  some  other  thing,  when  there  is  nothing  in  the 
declared  type  correspondent  with  the  essential  charactei-istic  of 
the  declared  antitype.  Now,  the  theor}^  says,  that  the  essential 
characteristic  of  Christian  baptism  (that  without  which  it  is  no 
baptism)  is  the  covering  in  water  by  dipping;  but  in  the  transac- 
tion on  Carmel  there  is  neither  covering  in  water  nor  a  dipping; 
therefore  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  that  in  which  there  is  nothing, 
answering  to  that  which  is  the  essence  of  some  other  thing,  can 
be  the  type  of  that  thing.  But  Ambrose  declares  that  there  is  a 
typical  relation  between  these  things  ;  and  he  further  declares 
that  this  typical  relation  is  found  in  the  baptism  which  is  common 


538  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

to  both ;  that  in  both  baptisms  there  was  a  victim,  the  bullock 
upon  the  altar  corresponding  with  the  man  laid  upon  the  altar  of 
faith  {tu  es  homo  super  aUare) ;  that  the  water  and  fire  of  Elias 
correspond  with  the  "Spirit  and  fire"  of  Christ;  and  as  the  water 
invested  with  the  power  of  fire  burned  up  the  victim,  and  stones, 
and  wood,  so  the  water  of  Christian  baptism  impregnated  with 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  does  as  a  fire  burn  up  sin  in  the  soul. 
The  [i(l.T.Ti.aij.(j.  on  Carmel  was  no  water-covering ;  it  was  a  type- 
cei'emonial  purification,  having  its  antitype  in  the  [idnri(7ij.a  of 
Christianity,  in  which  there  is  no  water-covering,  but  a  real  spirit- 
ual purification.  Thus  Ambrose  has  his  justification,  and  the 
theory  has  its  condemnation. 

There  is  another  altar  baptism  ver3'  analogous  to  this,  in  which 
both  sprinkling  and  pouring  appear  as  the  forms  under  which  the 
baptism  is  efi"ected.     To  this  we  will  now  briefly  refer. 

Sprinkling  and  Pouring  Baptism. 

2  Maccabees  1 :  20-36,  "  They  found  no  fire  but  thick  water. 
Then  commanded  he  to  take  it  up  by  dipping  and  bring  it;  and 
when  the  sacrifices  were  laid  on,Nehemiah  commanded  the  priests 
to  sprinkle  (i-cppavat)  with  the  water  (rw  uSa-t)  both  the  wood  and 
that  which  la}'  upon  it.  When  this  was  done,  and  the  time  came 
that  the  sun  shone,  which  afore  was  hid  in  the  cloud,  there  was  a 
great  fire  kindled,  so  that  every  man  marvelled.  .  .  .  Now,  when 
the  sacrifice  was  consumed,  Nehemiah  commanded  the  water  that 
was  left  to  be  poured  {y.arairxe'iv)  upon  the  great  stones.  When 
this  was  done  there  was  kindled  a  flame;  but  it  was  consumed  by 
the  light  which  shone  from  the  altar.  ...  It  was  told  the  king 
of  Persia  that  Nehemiah  had  purified  (j^pfffai/)  the  sacrifices  there- 
with. And  Nehemiah  called  this  thing  Naphthar,  which  inter- 
preted is  Purification  {y.aOafiKTp.oz).'''' 

Ambrose  III,  174:  ''The  narrative  of  the  preceding  event" 
(see  Levit.  9  :  24),  "  and  especially  the  sacrifice  offered  by  Nehe- 
miah, betokens  the  Holy  Spirit  and  Christian  baptism  (Christi- 
anorum  baptisma).  I  think  that  we  cannot  be  ignorant  as  to  this 
fire,  since  we  learn  that  the  Lord  Jesus  baptizes  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  fire.  What,  then,  means  the  fire  was  made  water,  and 
the  water  kindling  a  fire, except  that  spiritual  grace  by  fire  burns, 
and  by  water  cleanses  our  sins  ? 

.  "  Fire  also  in  the  times  of  Elias  descended.  .  .  .  He 


SPRINKLING    AND    POURING    BAPTISM.  539 

cleansed  the  victim  (hostiam  suam  perfudii)  thrice  with  water 
(aqua),  and  the  water  flowed  around  the  altar,  and  the}^  cry  out, 
and  fire  fell  from  the  Lord  out  of  heaven  and  consumed  the  burnt 
offering.     Thou  art  that  victim  (hostia  ilia  tu  es)." 

Ambrose  declares  this  sprinkling  and  pouring  (not  as  simple 
forms  of  action,  but  forms  of  action  conveying  to  the  victim  and 
the  altar  a  fluid  possessed  of  a  power  capable  of  purifying  and 
consuming  by  fire  the  one  and  the  other)  to  be  a  type  baptism 
significant  of  Christian  baptism,  wherein  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  fire, 
communicates  to  the  water  a  power  to  burn  up  sin  and  to  purify 
the  soul. 

In  this  transaction, as  in  that  on  Carmel, there  is  no  appearance 
of  a  dipping  or  a  covering ;  the  appearance  of  either  is  excluded 
by  the  declared  presence  and  action  of  sprinkling  and  pouring. 
How,  in  the  presence  of  these  baptized  sacrifices  and  altars,  any 
one  can  say  that  to  baptize  is  to  dip  and  nothing  but  dip,  and 
baptism  is  a  water-covering,  is  inconceivable.  It  must  be  set 
down  as  a  marvel  of  marvels  among  all  the  marvellous  workings 
of  the  human  intellect.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  point  to  these 
type  baptisms  as  absolute  demonstration  that  the  iidxTiffij-a  of  the 
Patrists  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  a  ph^^sical  covering ; 
while  it  did  ever  express  a  thorough  change  of  condition,  and  in 
connection  with  Christian  baptism  (whether  in  type  or  antitype) 
a  thorough  change  of  condition  by  a  purifying  agencj^,  which 
therefore  assimilated  the  condition  of  the  object  to  its  own  char- 
acteristic. 

While  sprinkling  and  pouring  appear  in  these  baptisms,  it  must 
not  be  supposed  that  the}^  are  necessary  to  a  baptism.  A  baptism 
has  no  exclusive  dependence  on  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  dipping. 
Because  the  theory  (most  erroneously)  says,  "  To  baptize  is  to 
dip,  and  to  dip  is  to  baptize,"  its  friends  conclude  and  argue  (just 
as  erroneously)  that  others  say,  to  baptize  is  to  sprinkle  or  to 
pour,  and  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour  is  to  baptize.  Such  is  not  our 
faith.  We  do  not  believe  that  jSanrOico  means  either  to  spriilkle 
or  to  pour.  But  we  do  believe  that  these  are  modes  of  action 
(among  others)  whereby  the  requirement  of  (SanriXiu  (in  its  re- 
ligious applications  to  which  ^durtaixa  is  limited)  is  perfectly 
eflfected. 

In  proof  that  neither  dipping,  nor  pouring,  nor  sprinkling,  are 
necessary  to  a  baptism,  we  will  turn  our  attention  to  some  cases 
in  which  neither  of  them  appears. 


540  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


Baptisms  without  Dipping,  Pouring,  or  Sprinkling. 

Clemens  Romanus,  197  :  "  Thou,  therefore,  0  Bishop,  wilt 
anoint,  after  this  manner,  the  head  of  the  baptized,  whether  men 
or  women,  with  the  holy  oil,  as  a  type  of  the  spiritual  baptism 
(elq  ruTTov  r<iu  Tzveu/iarcxou  /5a7rT£'<7/jiaToc)." 

In  this  type  head-anointing  baptism  dipping  cannot  exist; 
pouring  or  sprinkling  may  have  place  but  only  of  accident  and 
not  of  necessity.  This  oil  is  not  the  type  of  any  action,  but  of  a 
result,  effect,  the  new  condition  of  the  soul  invested  with  spiritual 
endowments — the  ^dnriaixa  resultant  from  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Of  this  result  rich  in  gift  and  grace,  a  fragrant  un- 
guent applied  to  the  head  is  a  manifest  type — a  type  baptism. 
As  the  type  of  an  act — dipping,  pouring,  sprinkling,  it  is  non- 
sense. 

837  :  "  He  that  is  reckoned  worthy  of  martyrdom,  let  him  rejoice 
in  the  Lord,  as  attaining  such  a  crown  and  dying  through  confes- 
sion, and  if  he  should  be  but  a  Catechumen"  (therefore  unbap- 
tized)  "  let  him  die  without  sorrow,  for  the  suffering  (ro  TzdOw:) 
which  is  for  Christ  will  be  to  him  a  truer  baptism  (yvriattuztpov 
[idT:TtffiJ.a)y 

In  this  baptism  there  is  neither  dipping,  pouring,  or  sprinkling, 
and  yet  there  is  a  baptism  more  real,  genuine,  legitimate,  truer, 
than  the  baptism  by  water.  Such  a  statement  is  absurdly  false 
if  [idnztffixa  be  a  physical  covering;  it  is  patently  true  if  it  be  a 
condition  of  soul  resultant  from  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Circumcision  Baptism.  Justin  Martyr,  516  :  "Wash  you  and 
be  clean,  and  put  away  iniquities  from  your  souls,  as  God  com- 
mands you  to  wash  this  washing  {lotxTaaOat  ruhru  to  XuuTf><»)  and  to 
circumcise  the  true  circumcision.  .  .  .  This  circumcision  of  the 
flesh  is  not  necessary  for  all,  but  for  you  only.  For  we  have  not 
received  that  profitless  baptism  which  is  of  cisterns  {zw'^  Xdxxwv), 
for  it  is  worthless  (ouSiv)  compared  with  this  baptism  of  life. 
Therefore  God  has  exclaimed,  because  ye  have  left  Him  the  living 
fountain  and  have  hewn  out  for  yourselves  broken  cisterns 
{kdx/Muc;)  wliich  cannot  hold  water.  And  you,  indeed,  who  have 
been  circumcised  as  to  the  flesh  need  our  circumcision ;  but  we, 
having  this,  have  no  need  of  that.  .  .  .  537  :  What  need,  then, 
have  I  of  circumcision  having  received  witness  from  God  ? 
What  need  is  there  of  that  baptism  (^zec'wu  rou  fiunTiff/iaro':)  for 


BAPTISMS    WITHOUT    POURING,    DIPPING,   ETC.         541 
me,  who  have  been  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit  (c^^tV  nveu/j-an  /9s- 

Justin  uses  "  broken  cisterns  "  (^dxxou<;  (ruvrsniiiiivnui;)^  as  Isaiah 
does,  to  represent  all  worthless  substitutes,  for  God  and  his  life- 
giving  blessing.  Among  these  substitutes  he  places  fleshly  cir- 
cumcision, which  he  calls  a  baptism  because  it  was  for  typical  pu- 
rification, but  being  taken  for  real  purification  to  the  rejection  of 
the  true  (that  of  the  heart),  Justin  pronounces  it  (in  this  aspect) 
to  be  a  "broken  cistern  " — a  worthless  baptism  to  them  and  one 
of  which  he  has  no  need,  being  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  is  the  antitype  circumcision. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say,  that  while  in  circumcision  baptism 
there  is  the  most  impressive  exhibition  of  the  necessity  for  puri- 
fication, there  is  no  exhibition  of  a  dipping,  or  pouring,  or  sprink- 
ling. 

Baptism  of  water  as  an  element.  Tertull.  Ill,  1082:  "We 
judge  that  no  one  can  be  baptized  (by  heretics)  out  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  baptism  being  one  and  existing  only  in  the  Catholic 
Church.  For  it  is  written :  '  They  have  forsaken  me  the  fountain 
of  living  waters  and  have  hewn  out  for  themselves  broken  cis- 
terns which  cannot  hold  water.'  It  is  necessary,  also,  that  the 
water  be  purified  {y.aOapi'^effdai)  and  sanctified  first  by  the  priest, 
that  it  may  be  able  by  its  own  baptism  (rip  \8t(u  iSa-riff/iart)  to 
cleanse  the  sins  of  the  baptized  man  [too  (^ann^o/jjvou  a^jOputizou). 
For  the  Lord  says,  through  the  prophet  Ezekiel ;  '  And  I  will 
sprinkle  3'ou  (^mrtffiu)  with  pure  water  (xaOapdi  udan)^  and  will 
purify  3'ou  (xaOapcb)^  and  will  give  you  a  new  heart,  and  will  give 
a  new  spirit  within  you.'  And  how  can  a  man  being  himself  im- 
pure {axdOapT(v;)  and  the  Holy  Spirit  not  with  him,  purify  {xada- 
piaai)  and  sanctify  water  ?  The  Lord  saying  in  Numbers  :  '  All 
things  which  the  impure  man  shall  touch  shall  be  impure,'  how 
then,  can  he  by  baptizing  remit  sins  to  another  when  he  cannot 
out  of  the  Church  remit  his  own  sins  ?  " 

This  is  the  doctrine  and  argument  of  Cyprian  and  of  the 
Council  of  Carthage  represented  by  him,  showing  that  water 
itself  must  be  baptized  before  it  can  baptize,  which  baptism  of 
water  consists  neither  in  its  being  dipped,  nor  poured,  nor  sprin- 
kled, but  in  a  thorough  change  of  its  condition  by  purification  and 
sanctification,  whereby  it  secures  a  new  power  by  which  it  is  able 
to  baptize,  i.  e.,  to  purify  and  sanctify.  This  water  with  a  new 
quality,  now  becomes  odwp  xadapuv^  and  its  new  power  is  developed 


542    ^  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

(although  not  obtained)  by  sprinkling,  and  therefore  (as  Cyprian 
argues)  The  Lord  says:  "I  will  sprinkle  (/Javrj'^w)  you  y.aOaput 
S^art' with  the  purified,  baptized  and  therefore  baptizing,  jjurify- 
ing  water."  This  is  Patristic  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  baptism 
(developed  in  a  thousand  ways)  and  it  carries  the  theory  away, 
as  b}^  a  wliirlwind,  beyond  their  sympathy  or  recognition. 

Painting  Baptism.  Chrysostom  {pars  prior .^  2)  235.  "Do  as 
painters  in  painting  the  likenesses  of  kings.  Before  the  true 
color  is  put  on  they  remove  and  repaint  without  restraint,  cor- 
recting errors,  and  taking  away  imperfections  ;  but  after  they 
have  put  on  the  proper  color  (rr/v  /Jafjjv)  they  are  no  longer  mas- 
ters to  change  and  to  repaint,  lest  the  beauty  of  the  likeness  be 
injured.  Thus  do:  regard  your  soul  as  a  likeness.  Therefore 
before  the  true  color  of  the  Si)irit  (rryi^  aXi^Orj  too  Il'^£u/j.ar(i<;  l^a^ijv) 
is  laid  upon  it,  blot  out  your  evil  practices,  whether  swearing,  or 
lying,  or  rioting,  or  evil  speaking,  or  an}'  other  unlawful  practice, 
that  j'ou  may  not  return  to  it  again  after  baptism.  The  washing 
(to  XtivT()w)  makes  sins  disappear,  do  thou  correct  the  practice, 
that  the  colors  {zwv  ypcjtj.drwv)  being  laid  on,  and  the  royal  like- 
ness shining  forth,  you  may  not  afterward  blot  out  and  mar  the 
beauty  given  to  thee  by  God." 

This  comparison  of  baptism  to  a  royal  portrait,  by  Chrysostom, 
brings  out  the  feature  of  assimilation  which  Basil  says  belongs 
to  baptism.  Baptism  is  riot  merely  a  thorough  change  of  condi- 
tion, but  it  is  such  a  change  stamped  with  the  characteristic  of 
that  which  baptizes — effects  the  change.  The  reason  for  this  is 
obvious :  iSaTtzi^w  is  derived  from  jSa-Krw  and  derives  its  character- 
istics from  iSdnriu  second,  to  dye,  to  color,  and  not  from  jSdTzrio 
first,  TO  DIP.  Now,  an  object  whose  color  is  changed  by  a  dye 
has  not  merely  its  color  changed,  but  changed  so  as  to  partake 
of  the  same  color  with  that  which  effects  the  change.  So  it  is 
with  an  oltject  whose  condition  is  changed  by  a  baptism.  These 
changes  have  nothing  to  do  with  colors  ;  that  s[)here  is  preoccu- 
pied ;  but  it  has  to  do  with  a  closely  related  si)here,  namely,  that 
of  qualities  without  color.  Thus,  wine  has  an  intoxicating 
quality,  and  it  baptizes  a  man  by  tlioroughly  changing  his  condi- 
tion, so  that  his  condition  is  marked  by  the  wine  characteristic, 
intoxicating  quality.  Opiates  have  a  soporific  quality,  and  they 
baptize  a  man  by  thoroughly  changing  his  condition,  assimilating 
it  to  their  characteristic,  soporific  qualit}'.  Water  has,  by  nature, 
a  deintoxicating  quality,  and  it  baptizes  wine  by  taking  away  its 


BAPTISMS    WITHOUT    POURING,   DIPPING,   ETC.  543 

intoxicating  quality,  thus  thoroughl}^  changing  its  condition  by 
bringing  it  into  assimilation  with  its  own  unintoxicating  charac- 
teristic. But  water  has  not,  by  nature,  a  qualit}'  which  enables 
it  Christianly  to  baptize,  that  is,  thoroughly  to  change  the  con- 
dition of  the  soul  so  as  to  remit  sin,  to  regenerate,  and  bring  out 
the  "  Kingly  likeness  "  of  Christ ;  but  water  itself  is  capable  (so 
Patrists  believed)  of  being  baptized  (==  thoroughly  changed  in 
its  nature)  by  a  divine  power,  so  that  it  shall  receive  the  purifying 
and  sanctifying  characteristics  of  that  power,  and  not  only  so, 
but  shall  receive  them  in  such  fulness  of  power  as  to  be  able,  in 
turn,  to  purif)'  and  sanctify.  As  this  baptizing  power  is  from  the 
Holy  Spirit,  it  follows,  that  in  the  baptized,  thoroughly  changed 
condition  of  the  soul,  a  likeness  to  the  divine  Baptizer  must  be 
developed.  It  is  on  this  basis,  that  the  Roj'al  likeness  of  Chrys- 
ostom  is  grounded.  But  if  baptism  be  a  dipping  and  a  water 
covering,  what  then  would  be  the  picture  in  the  soul  ? 
The  theory  falls  under  every  form  of  trial. 

The  evidence  now  presented  showing  that  the  ^dizTiaim  of  early 
Christian  writers  was  not  a  phj^sical  water  covering,  but  a  spirit- 
ual condition  of  the  soul,  and  sometimes  applied  to  the  condition 
of  the  water  as  impregnated  with  a  power  making  it  capable  of 
effecting  such  baptisma  of  the  soul,  is  conclusive  against  the 
theory;  but  this  evidence  is  capable  of  being  indefinitely  strength- 
ened b}^  other,  independent,  lines  of  argument.  Among  these  is 
that  which  goes  to  show,  that  what  the  theory  claims  to  be  the 
receiving  element  within  which  the  baptized  object  passes  (which 
withinness  constitutes  the  j3d7:rc(rtj.a)  stands  in  no  such  relation  to 
the  baptism,  but  is  (however  used)  the  agency  by  which  a  spiritual 
l^anTiff/ia  is  effected. 

The  evidence  for  this  is  patent  and  abounding,  and  being  ad- 
duced the  foundation  is  taken  from  under  the  theory,  and  it  falls 
out  of  sight. 

The  presentation  of  some  of  this  evidence,  already  of  necessity 
referred  to,  will  now  engage  our  attention. 


TAATI  KAi  nNETMATI. 


WATER   AND    SPIRIT   IN    PATRISTIC    BAPTISM   ARE    NOT    RECEIVING 
ELEMENTS    BUT    CONJOINT   AGENCY. 

Water  and  Spirit  Baptism. 

Friends  of  the  theory  seem  to  imagine  that  the  admission, 
that  the  bodies  of  the  baptized,  when  in  health,  were  momentaril}' 
covered  in  water  in  ancient  times,  is  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the 
theory  as  affirming  that  such  covering  is  Christian  baptism,  and 
that  Patristic  writers  did  so  believe  and  therefore  did  so  practice. 
We  wish  therefore  distinctly  to  say,  that  in  adducing  evidence  to 
show,  that  "the  Water  and  the  Spirit"  appear  in  Patristic  bap- 
tism as  recognized  agencies  and  not  as  receiving  elements,  we 
have  no  purpose  to  deny  or  to  question  or  to  shadow  this  fact ; 
but  on  the  contrary  to  give  it  unhesitating  acknowledgment.  In 
doing  so,  however,  we  mean  to  enter  a  peremptory  denial  of  the 
conclusion  drawn  from  this  fact,  that  tliis  momentary  covering  in 
water  was  believed  to  be  Christian  baptism  or  any  baptism  what- 
ever. 

With  this  acknowledgment  of  a  historical  fact,  we  ask  the  ac- 
knowledgment, in  turn,  of  another,  just  as  patent,  historical  fact, 
namely :  that  those  not  in  health  were  "  almost  daily  "  for  more 
than  a  thousand  years  baptized  ivithout  any  ivater  covering,  by 
pouring  and  sprinkling.  We  do  not,  however,  append  to  this 
fact  the  conclusion — "  and  these  acts  were  Christian  baptism,  and 
were  so  believed  to  be,  and  therefore  were  practiced."  They  be- 
lieved no  such  thing.  We  believe  no  such  thing.  But  they  did 
believe,  that  baptizing  water  used  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  did 
as  absolutely  and  as  literally  effect  the  Baptisma  of  Christianity 
as  was  effected  by  the  momentary  covering  of  the  body  in  water. 
The  theory  must  confront  this  fact  living  through  the  history  of 
(  544  ) 


WATER    AND    SPIRIT    BAPTISM.  545 

a  millenary  of  years.  In  attempting  to  do  battle  against  it,  resort 
should  be  had  to  something  more  effective  than  the  crj' — "  Clinic 
baptism  !  "  "  Compend  baptism  !  "  "  Ecclesiastical  baptism  !  " 
Such  tactics  belong  to  China.  They  scatter  no  opposing  ranks 
outside  of  the  Celestial  Empire.  Others  have  learned,  if  the 
theory  has  not,  that  "  Ecclesiastical  baptism  "  is  the  only  valid 
baptism  ;  that  "  Compend  baptism  "  is  "  a  most  glorious  baptism ; " 
while  old  Cyprian  tells  the  sneerer  at  "Clinic  baptism,"  that  he 
may  have  studied  the  mysteries  of  Clinicism  with  Hippocrates^ 
but  he  has  yet  to  learn  from  Jesus  Christ  as  he  blesses  at  the 
Clinic's  bedside. 

We  accept  the  fact  of  a  momentary  covering  in  "ex  ordine" 
baptism,  and  assume  the  responsibility  of  proving,  that  there  was 
no  baptism  in  said  covering  ;  but  that  the  water  so  used  was  em- 
ployed as  an  agency  to  effect  a  baptism  which  was  spiritual  and 
not  physical  in  its  nature. 

But  there  is  another  fact,  likewise  extending  through  mor&than 
ten  centuries,  which  it  is  desirable  for  the  theory  to  acknowledge 
and  explain.  I  refer  to  the  fact  that  all  persons,  male  and  female, 
through  this  long  period  were  covered  in  water  divested  of  all 
clothing. 

For  such  a  fact  there  must  be  a  powerful  reason.  What  was  it? 
I  know  that  some  reasons  can  be  presented  in  connection  with  a 
"new  birth,"  a  "new  life,"  etc.,  which  are  all  very  inadequate  to 
meet  the  case.  But  after  some  considerable  examination  I  find 
none  so  satisfactory  as  that  wliich  is  grounded  in  the  pieculiar 
character  of  the  ivater,  its  wonderful  power  exercised  over  the 
body,  and  through  the  body  upon  the  soul,  and  therefore^  the  de- 
sirableness of  its  being  brought  in  contact  with  the  naked  body, 
and  the  whole  body. 

If  any  better  reason  can  be  given  I  will  be  pleased  to  receive 
it ;  but  until  then  I  must  say,  that  this  naked  water  covering  was 
a  naked  water  washing,  not  grounded  on  the  meaning  of  [ia-ri^u} 
to  dip,  but  on  the  character  attributed  to  the  water,  whose  peculiar 
quality  they  sought  thus  to  secure  in  the  fullest  manner  possible. 

This  reason  is  enforced  by  another  fact,  to  wit:  that  evidence 
disproving  "dip"  to  be  the  meaning  of /JaTrrc'^w  has  been  adduced 
so  conclusive,  that  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  gainsay  it. 
Therefore,  a  designed  momentary  covering  of  an  object  in  water 
by  dipping  cannot  be  a  baptism  in  any  kind  of  water  whatever. 
This  reasoning  receives  additional  strength  from  the  baptizing 

35 


546  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

water  not  being  simple  water,  but  water  impregnated  with  a  qual- 
ity with  which  it  parts  to  an  object  dipped  (not  baptized)  into  it, 
spi'inkled  with  it,  or  poured  upon  hy  it.  In  this  respect  resem- 
bling a  dyeing  liquid  into  which  when  an  object  is  dipped  (for  the 
sake  of  securing  its  dj'eing  quality)  the  dipping  is  no  more  the 
dyeing,  than  is  the  sprinkling  or  the  pouring,  when  the  same  dye- 
ing liquid  parts  with  its  quality  under  either  of  these  processes. 
It  would  be  an  inexcusable  error  to  convert  ^dnrw  second  into 
fidr.ru)  first,  because  the  former  dyed  a  fleece  through  the  action 
of  dipping.  It  is  a  like  error  which  seeks  to  convert  the  Patristic 
/Sanri^vj  into  dip^  because  the  baptizing  water  parts  with  its  qualit}*" 
to  an  object  dipped  into  it,  the  effect  of  which  qualit}'  is  declared 
to  be  a  iSf/.nTKTiia ;  and  more  especially  when  this  water  sprinkled 
or  poured  is  declared  to  effect  the  same  identical  ^3dr,ri(riJ.a. 

Another  point  which  must  be  in  present  recollection  in  con- 
sidering this  subject  is,  the  Patristic  inseparability  of  the  water 
and  the  Spirit.  The  theory  claims,  that  a  momentary  covering 
in  simple  water  is  Christian  baptism.  But  there  is  no  such  water 
known  to  Patristic  baptism.  To  saj^  that  this  makes  no  difference 
is  to  talk  as  witlessly  as  to  say :  It  makes  no  difference  whether 
white  linen  be  dipped  into  simple  water,  or  into  water  empurpled 
by  murex.  There  is  difference ;  in  the  one  case  the  color  remains 
unchanged,  white ;  and  in  the  other  case  it  is  wholly  changed,  the 
white  has  become  purple.  The  Patrists  strenuously  aflirmed, 
that  a  dipping  into  simple  water  could  by  no  possibility  be  Chris- 
tian baptism  ;  for  the  soul  came  out  of  such  a  dipping  just  as  it 
went  in,  unwashen  of  sin  and  unregenerate  in  soul ;  while  one 
dipped  into  "  our  water"  came  out  thoroughl}^  changed  in  con- 
dition, sins  remitted  and  soul  regenerate,  or,  in  other  words,  bap- 
tized. The  theory  is  at  war  with  this  old  baptism  at  every  point. 
It  can  find  aid  and  comfort  nowhere.  Even  the  dipping  which 
appears  in  the  two  systems  is  as  diverse  in  its  origin  as  can  be 
conceived,  and  as  diverse  in  the  j-id.7:zcff;j.a  sought  as  in  the  case  of 
spring-water  dipping  and  dye-vat  dipping.  A  man  dipped  into 
simple  water  is  neither  Patristically  nor  Classicall}'  baptized.  A 
man  put  within  simple  water  in  any  way,  for  an  unlimited  time, 
is  Classicall}',  but  not  Patristically  baptized.  A  man  cannot  be 
Patristically  baptized  in  .simple  water  by  an}'  means,  whether 
sprinkling,  pouring,  dipping,  or  (what  is  a  very  different  thing) 
MEKsiNG  through  ten  thousand  years.  The  reason  for  this  is  the 
same  as  that  which  makes  it  impossible  for  white  linen  to  be  dyed 


CONJOINED    AGENCY.  547 

by  being  sprinkled,  poured  upon,  dipped,  or  mersed  in  simple 
water  whether  for  a  moment  or  forever.  Patristic  baptism  is  due 
to  a  quality  which  simple  water  does  not  possess  and  therefore 
cannot  give.  Simple  water  becomes  "baptized  water"  with  the 
power  to  baptize,  by  means  of  a  quality  divinely  communicated 
to  it ;  which  quality  exerts  its  power,  equally  and  perfectl}',  over 
an  object  dipped  into  it,  poured  upon  by  it,  or  sprinkled  with  it. 
That  this  is  true,  and  that  thus  only  can  Patristic  baptism  receive 
any  valuable  interpretation,  must  now  be  proved. 

Conjoined  Agency. 

A  Benedictine  monk  commenting  on  Tertullian  (III,  1175) 
says,  with  reference  to  John's  statement  of  Jesus,  "He  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holj'^  Spirit  and  fire."  "  Certainl3'  he  did  not 
exclude  tcater  from  the  baptism  of  Christ;  but  John  intends  to 
signify  only  this,  that  his  cleansing  was  only  simple,  that  is,  ex- 
ternal, effected  by  simple  water  (Suam  ahlutionem  solum  simpli- 
cem  esse,  simplici  nimirum  aqua  exterius  factam) ;  but  the 
cleansing  (ablutionem)  of  Christ  by  the  future  Baptism  would  be 
elevated  to  a  higher  mystery  and  also  to  the  inner  cleansing  of 
the  soul,  which  cannot  be  effected  without  the  grace  of  the  Hoi}'' 
Spirit  (quse  sine  gratia  Spiritus  sancti  nequit).''^ 

This  is  a  correct  representation  of  Patristic  views,  except  that 
it  does  not  give  sufficient  spirituality  to  John's  baptism.  It  is 
their  initial  error  on  the  subject  of  Christian  baptism.  This  error 
did  not  consist  in  believing,  that  the  use  of  water  was  to  be  per- 
petuated under  Christianity ;  but  that  it  was  to  have  no  distinct 
use  and  value  as  the  ministration  of  men  ;  its  character  as  simple, 
symbol  water  in  a  distinct  ritual  use,  disappearing  l)v  a  merge- 
ment  in  the  Holj^  Spirit,  by  whose  influence  it  became  thorouglily 
impregnated,  and  thus  was  made  the  vehicle  through  which  his 
divine  power  was  exerted  to  remit  sin  and  to  regenerate  the  soul. 

For  this  destructive  mersion  of  a  sj'mbol  baptism  with  simple 
water  by  men,  in  the  real  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  there  is  no  scriptural  warrant.  John  neither  says 
nor  implies,  that  water  will  enter  into  that  baptism  which  is  to  be 
personally  administered  by  Christ.  When  that  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered at  Jerusalem  and  at  Caesarea,  no  water  entered  into 
it.  When  its  universal  application  to  his  people  is  spoken  of— 
"We  are  all  baptized  b}^  one  Spirit  into  one  body"  (1  Cor.  12: 


548  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

13),  water  is  wholly  eliminated.  And  when  baptism  by  water  is 
spoken  of  (John  4  :  2)  as  done  in  the  presence  and  b}'  the  author- 
ity of  Jesus,  we  are  carefull}'  guarded  against  the  error  of  sup- 
posing that  Jesus  took  an}'  personal  part  in  such  baptism.  Thus 
we  are  guarded  both  positively  and  negatively  against  the  intro- 
duction of  water  into  that  baptism  which  was  to  be  personally 
administered  by  Christ.  He  did  baptize  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  He 
did  not  baptize  b}'  water.  There  is  a  symbol  baptism  through 
simple  water  by  men.  There  is  no  baptism  through  impregnated 
water  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

No  worthy  estimate  can  be  formed  of  the  Christianity  of  these 
"  Christian  Fathers  "  without  remembering,  that  they  did  most 
emphatically  deny  the  power  of  "  simple  "  water  to  remit  sin  and 
to  regenerate  the  soul,  and  that  their  mixed  agenc}'  of  '*  water 
and  Spirit''  was,  as  to  its  power,  nothing  but  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  imagined  conjunction  of  this  divine  agency 
with  water  administered  by  men  necessarily  led  to  other  manifold 
errors,  notwithstanding  most  sedulous  efforts  to  guard  against 
them,  by  teaching  vital  and  antagonistic  doctrines  inculcating  the 
necessity  of  personal  repentance,  faith,  and  godly  living.  But  the 
adorable  Head  of  the  Church  most  efl'ectually  prevented  this  error 
from  fruiting  out  in  its  worst  forms  by  administering  his  own  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  (unmixed  with  water)  from  the  skies,  and  gird- 
ling his  people  with  the  prison  and  the  amphitheatre;  the  sword 
and  the  fire ! 

A  few  extracts  will  show  the  teaching  of  this  conjoint  and 
synchronously  operating  agency. 

Tertull.  Ill,  lost:  "Except  a  man  be  born  again  of  water 
and  Spirit"  (John  3:5).  "This  is  that  Spirit  which  in  the  be- 
ginning was  borne  above  the  waters.  For  neither  can  the  Spirit 
operate  without  the  water,  nor  the  water  without  the  Spirit." 

Ill,  1132,  Council  of  Carthage  :  "  For  ivater  only,  unless  it 
have  the  Holy  Spirit  also,  cannot  purge  sins  or  sanctify  man. 
Wherefore  tlioy  must  admit  the  Holy  Spirit  to  l)e  there  where  they 
say  baptism  is,  or  that  baptism  is  not  where  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
not :  for  baptism  cannot  be  where  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not." 

Augustine  IX,  20G  :  "  It  is  true  that  every  one  who  shall  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  first  horn  again  of  ivater  and  the 
Spirit."  VI,  255  :  "  For  his  baptism  was  not  like  that  of  John 
with  water  only  ;  but  also  by  the  Hoi}'  Spirit." 

That  this  quality  given  to  simple   water  by  the  Spirit  has  a 


SPECIAL    QUALITY    AND    POWER    GIVEN    TO    WATERS.      549 

generic  resemblance  to  water  to  which  a  dyeing  quality  has  been 
communicated,  is  shown  by  the  following  extract. 

Ambrose  I,  867  :  "Have  merc}^  upon  me,  0  Lord,  according  to 
thy  loving  kindness  and  according  to  the  multitude  of  thy  tender 
mercies  blot  out  my  iniquity  and  cleanse  me  from  my  sin  "  (Ps. 
51:1).  "  David  does  not  desire  so  much  to  be  washed  frequently 
as  to  be  washed  perfectlj^  (in  midtum  lava).  He  knew  many 
means  of  cleansing  according  to  the  Law,  but  none  was  full  and 
perfect.  Therefore  he  eagerly  hastens  to  that  perfect  one  by 
which  all  righteousness  is  fulfilled,  which  is  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism, as  the  Lord  teaches — '  Thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all 
righteousness.'  The  divine  word  cleanses,  our  confession  cleanses, 
right  thinking  cleanses,  just  working  cleanses,  also,  a  good  con- 
versation cleanses.  Every  one  cleansed  b}'  these  things  more 
readil}'  imbibes  and  as  it  were  appropriates  to  himself  a  splendor 
of  spiritual  grace.  In  a  word  it  is  not  by  one  infusion  of  a  Jieece 
that  a  precious  dye  shines  forth,  but  first  the  fleece  is  tinged  with 
an  inferior  color,  afterwards  by  repeated  dyeings  the  natural  ap- 
pearance is  effaced  and  is  changed  by  a  different  color,  and  thus 
a  d^^e  as  of  a  fuller  washing,  is  secured,  so  that  a  truer  and  better 
purple  empurples  the  fleece.  As  therefore  in  a  purple  dye  there 
are  very  many  murices,  so  in  the  washing  of  regeneration  there  is 
a  multitude  of  mercies  that  iniquit}^  may  be  blotted  out.  There- 
fore he  who  is  washed  thoroughly  is  cleansed  from  unrighteous- 
ness and  from  sin,  and  lays  aside  the  habit  of  sinning  which  has 
grown  in  the  inclinations  and  the  will,  and  loses  the  quality 
itself" 

The  most  earnest  friends  of  the  theory  admit  that  dyeing  may 
be  effected  by  sprinkling  or  pouring.  The  Patrists  for  like  rea- 
son regarding  "our  water"  as  generically  like  a  dye;  that  is  to 
say,  simple  water  with  a  superadded  quality  capable  of  communi- 
cating the  characteristic  of  that  quality  in  various  ways,  therefore, 
believed  that  baptizing  was  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  as  truly  as 
in  any  other  conceivable  way. 

Sjyecial  Quality  and  Power  given  to  Waters. 

Tertull.  II,  734  :  "The  madness  of  the  heretic  Menander  is 
spit  out  declaring  that  death  neither  pertains  to  nor  can  reach  his 
disciples.  .  .  .  They  who  put  on  his  baptism  are  made  immortal, 
and  incorruptible,  and  immediately  partakers  of  the  resurrection. 


550  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

We  read,  indeed,  of  many  kinds  of  wonderful  waters :  those  of 
Lyncesta  which  made  drunk,  of  Colophon  which  made  frantic,  of 
Nonacris  tinctured  with  poison.  There  was,  also,  a  healing  pool 
of  Judtea  before  Chi'ist.  The  poet  tells  of  the  Stygian  pools  wash- 
ing away  death ;  but  if  Menander  should  merse  into  the  Styx  (in 
Stygam  mergit)  death  must  intervene  to  reach  the  Stj^x,  for  it  is 
in  the  infernal  regions.  But  what  or  where  is  that  felicity  of 
waters  which  John  the  Baptizer  did  not  foreadrainister,  nor 
Christ  himself  make  known  ?  What  is  this  bath  of  Menander  ? 
It  must  belong  to  magic  art." 

Tertullian  recognizes  the  fact  that  various  qualities  are  found 
superadded  to  those  qualities  which  are  inherent  in  simple  water, 
whereby  they  are  capable  of  exerting  an  influence  which  simple 
water  cannot  exert.  He  sa3'^s,  that  Menander  claimed  a  special 
quality  for  his  baptizing  water.  And  he  claims,  that  there  were 
special  qualities  belonging  to  the  water  used  by  John  and  Christ. 
But  the  several  qualities  of  these  waters  was  variously  developed, 
some  by  drinking,  some  by  stepping  into,  some  by  dipping,  etc. 
And  in  like  manner  Tertullian  and  all  his  associates  declare  that 
the  peculiar  quality  which  they  attributed  to  their  water  was  vari- 
ously developed,  by  dipping,  by  pouring,  and  by  sprinkling,  or 
they  declare  nothing. 

The  theory  hopelessly  breaks  down  in  treating  Patristic  water 
as  simple  water  ;  as  it  does,  indeed,  in  every  other  direction.  The 
quo  modo  of  communicating  this  quality  is  shown  in  the  following 
passages. 

Quality  communicated  to  Baptizing  Water. 

By  the  Holy  Spirit.  Tertull.  I,  1203  :  "A  figure  of  baptism  is 
presented  by  the  Spirit  of  God  which  from  the  beginning  was 
borne  above  the  waters  about  to  reform  the  imbued.  The  holy 
was  borne  above  the  holy  ;  or  that  which  bore  was  sanctified  b}' 
that  whicli  was  upborne.  Since  whatever  substance  underlies 
receives  the  quality  of  that  which  overlies,  especially  does  a  cor- 
poreal substance  receive  a  spiritual  quality  being  readily  pene- 
trated and  controlled  by  the  subtilty  of  its  nature.  So,  the  nature 
of  the  waters  having  been  sanctified  by  the  Hoi}',  it  receives  itself 
the  power  to  sanctify.  .  .  .  All  waters  therefore  have  the  power 
to  effect  the  sacrament  of  sanctification,  God  being  invoked. 
For  immediately  the  Spirit  from  heaven  comes  and  is  above  the 


QUALITY    COMMUNICATED    TO    BAPTIZING    WATER.      551 

waters  sanctifying  them  by  himself,  and  so,  they  being  sanctifled, 
imbibe  the  jjower  of  sanctifying.  .  .  .  Therefore  the  waters  having 
received  healing  virtues  (viedicatis)  through  the  intervention  of 
the  Angel,  both  the  soul  is  corporeally  purified  by  the  waters  and 
the  body  is  spiritually  cleansed  by  the  same.  The  heathen,  ignor- 
ant of  spiritual  things,  ascribe  the  same  power  to  their  idols,  but 
with  unmarried  waters  (=unimpregnated  with  healing  virtues, 
viduis  aquis),  they  deceive  themselves." 

1205  :  "  If  it  should  seem  a  strange  thing  that  the  holy  Angel 
of  God  should  intermeddle  with  the  waters,  we  have  an  illustra- 
tion in  the  troubling  of  the  waters  of  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  into 
which  whosoever  first  went  down  was  healed  after  the  washing. 
This  figure  of  a  corporeal  medicine  announced  a  spiritual  medi- 
cine (medicinam)  by  such  form  as  carnal  things  always  precede, 
as  a  figure,  spiritual  things.  The  grace  of  God  blessing  men  has 
added  more  to  the  waters  of  the  Angel;  what  remedied  the 
imperfections  of  the  body,  now  heal  the  soul ;  what  wrought  tem- 
poral soundness,  now  effects  eternal ;  what  released  once  in  the 
year,  now  profits  the  people  every  day ;  death  being  destroyed  by 
the  washing  away  of  sins.  Man  is  restored  to  the  likeness  of 
God." 

DiDYMUS  Alexander,  692:  "The  indivisible  and  ineffable 
Trinity  foreseeing  the  frailties  of  humanity,  in  creating  a  fluid 
substance  out  of  nothing  prepared  for  men  the  healing  of  the 
waters.  Accordingly  the  Holy  Spirit  by  his  movement  upon  the 
waters,  appears  from  that  time  to  have  sanctified  them  and  made 
them  life-giving.  For  it  is  evident  to  every  one,  that  what  over- 
lies imparts  of  its  own  quality  to  that  which  underlies,  and  all 
underlying  matter  is  accustomed  to  take  of  the  peculiarity  of  that 
which  overlies.  Whence  baptism  belongs  to  all  water  indiscrimi- 
nately, in  necessity,  as  waters  are  of  one  nature  and  all  are  sancti- 
fied. Moses  says  :  '  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  was  borne  above  the 
waters.'  .  .  .  The  pool  of  Bethesda  is  confessedly  an  image  of 
baptism  but  not  having  the  very  truth  ;  for  an  image  is  for  the 
time,  but  the  truth  is  forever.  Therefore  the  water  in  it  was 
moved  once  a  year  by  an  Angel,  and  one  onfy,  he  that  stepped 
first  down,  was  healed  of  bodily  disease  but  not  of  spiritual.  But 
true  (abOsvTty.dv)  baptism,  after  the  appearing  of  the  Son  ancfof  the 
Holy  Spirit,  every  day,  or  every  hour,  or,  to  speak  most  truly, 
continually,  frees  forever  all  who  step  down  from  all  sin.     The 


552  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Angel  who  troubled  the  water  was  the  Forerunner  of  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

Jerome  II,  161:  "How  is  the  soul  which  has  not  the  Holy 
Spirit  purged  from  old  defilements  ?  For  water  does  not  wash 
(lavat)  the  soul  unless  it  is  first  washed  (lavatur)  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  it  may  be  able  spiritually  to  wash  others.  '  The  Spirit 
of  the  Lord,  says  Moses,  was  borne  above  the  waters.'  From 
which  it  appears  that  baptism  is  not  without  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Bethesda,  a  pool  of  Judaea,  could  not  heal  diseased  bodies  except 
through  the  coming  of  an  Angel,  and  do  you  offer  to  me  a  soul 
washed  by  simple  water  (simplici  aqua)  as  from  a  bath  ?" 

The  baptism  of  Tertullian,  as  well  as  that  of  Didymus  and  of 
Jerome,  was  a  soul-washing  through  a  special  power  medicating 
the  waters,  and  they  rejected  with  disdain  the  idea  that  "  simple 
water  "  in  the  hands  of  an  idolater  or  of  a  bath-keeper  could  bap- 
tize ;  not  because  of  those  who  used  it,  but  because  they  used 
"  simple  "  and  not  divinely  "  medicated  "  waters.  How  long  would 
it  take  the  theory  to  get  the  imprimatur  of  such  men  to  its  dip- 
ping into  "  simple  water  "? 

This  medicated  quality,  by  which  and  not  by  a  dipping,  bap- 
tism is  effected,  is,  also,  attributed  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Baptizing  quality  received  through  Christ.  Ignatius,  660  : 
"Jesus  Christ  was  born  and  baptized  that  he  might  purify  (xaOa- 
pifftj)  the  water  by  his  passion." 

Tertull.  II,  615:  "Christ  having  been  baptized,  that  is  sanc- 
tifying {sanctificanle)  the  waters  by  his  baptism." 

Ambrose  III,  627:  "  Pei-haps  some  one  may  say,  'Why  did 
he  who  was  holy  wish  to  be  baptized  ?  '  Hear,  then  :  Christ  was 
therefore  baptized,  not  that  he  might  be  sanctified  by  the  waters, 
but  that  he  might  sanctify  the  waters,  and  by  his  own  parity 
purify  the  stream  which  he  touches  ;  for  the  consecration  of  Christ 
is  a  greater  consecration  of  the  element.  For  when  the  Saviour 
is  washed  {abluitur)  the  whole  water  is  cleansed  (mundatur)  for 
our  baptism,  and  the  fountain  is  purified  {purificalur),  that  the 
grace  of  the  washing  may  be  supplied  to  the  people  coming  after." 

Marc^e  Eremit^e,  927  :  "  He  indeed  needed  no  washing,  for  it 
is  written  of  him,  '  He  did  no  sin  ; '  and  where  there  is  no  sin  there 
can  bo  no  remission.  The  waters  for  our  washing  were  sanctified 
and  purged  b}'  him." 

EpiPiiANius  II,  880:  "Christ  baptized  by  John  came  to  the 


QUALITY    COMMUNICATED    TO    BAPTIZING    WATER.       553 

waters,  not  needing  washing  (Xoot/xiu)^  to  give  rather  than  to  re- 
ceive ;  giving  them  power  for  those  who  were  to  be  perfected." 

The  proof  is  absolute  that  "simple  water"  could  not  patristi- 
cally  baptize  (could  it  not  cover?  "what  is  baptism  in  one  case  is 
baptism  in  another"  Carson),  and  that  it  might  be  qualified  so  to 
do,  a  special  quality  was  divinel}'^  conferred  upon  it,  enabling  it, 
in  tui-n,  to  confer  like  quality. 

This  office  of  efficient  agency,  not  "  to  dip,"  not  "  to  cover," 
but,  to  purify,  to  sanctify,  to  I'emit  sin,  and  to  regenerate,  these 
waters,  thus  qualified,  did,  according  to  Patristic  faith,  abun- 
dantly exercise.  In  evidence  of  which  see  these  further  quota- 
tions : 

TjiRTULL.  IT,  720 :  "  When  he  comes  to  the  faith  formed  anew 
{reformata)  by  the  second  birth  hy  means  of  water  and  power 
from  on  high  {ex  aqua  et  superna  virtute).^^ 

Clemens  Alex.  I,  279:  "  If  Christ  was  perfect,  why  was  the 
perfect  one  baptized  ?  To  fulfil  the  human  profession.  He  is 
perfected  by  the  washing  only  (tw  Xourpu)  iiovwi)  and  the  coming 
of  the  Spirit.  This  same  thing  happens  to  us  of  whom  the  Lord 
was  an  exemplification.  Being  baptized  we  are  illuminated ; 
being  illuminated  we  are  made  sons;  being  made  sons  we  are  per- 
fected ;  being  perfected  we  are  made  immortal.  He  says :  '  I  have 
said  ye  are  Gods ;  and  all  of  you  sons  of  the  Most  High.'  This 
is  variously  designated  as  grace,  and  illumination,  and  perfection, 
and  washing  {kooTpov).  It  is  called  washing  (JMurpdv)  because  we 
are  cleansed  from  our  sins." 

Origen  I,  601:  "We  must  remember  that  we  have  sinned 
and  that  the  remission  of  sins  cannot  be  received  without  bap- 
tism ;  and  that  according  to  the  evangelical  laws  we  cannot  be 
baptized  again  into  the  remission  of  sins  hy  water  and  Spirit 
(vSart  y.at  Uvsu/j-art  /SaTrrjffa^r^a;)." 

Cyril,  425 :  "  Rejoice,  O  Heavens,  and  be  glad,  0  Earth,  because 
of  those  who  are  about  to  be  sprinkled  (pa'^rCCsffOac)  with  hyssop 
and  to  be  purified  (/.aOapt^strOac)  by  the  spiritual  (rw  var^rw)  hj'ssop, 
by  the  power  of  Him  who  drank  at  his  passion  from  the  hyssop 
and  the  reed.  .  .  .  Prepare  pure  vessels  and  sincere  faith  of  the 
soul  for  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Begin  to  wash  your 
garments  through  repentance,  that  being  called  to  the  bride- 
chamber  ye  may  be  found  pure.  .  .  .  That  the  souls  of  you  all 
may  be  found  not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing;  I 
do  not  sa}'  before  the  receiving  of  the  grace,  for  how  could  this 


554  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

be,  since  j'ou  are  called  for  the  remission  of  sins,  but  that  the 
o-race  beinc  given,  an  uncondemning  conscience  may  be  found 
concurrent  with  the  grace."  429  :  "  Do  not  regard  this  washing  as 
by  SIMPLE  water,  but  as  by  the  spiritual  gy^ace  given  with  the  water 
(zYi  7:'^zu;i.u-al  /«/>'"£  ps'a  ziib  udari)'-).  .  .  .  For  as  sacrifices  upon 
the  altars  are  by  nature  pure,  but  become  polluted  by  the  invoca- 
tion of  idols,  so,  on  the  contrary,  the  simple  water  (to  Actov  odutp) 
receiving  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  Christ,  and 
of  the  Father,  acquires  the  power  of  sanctification  (5uva,'j.tv  dyiorrj- 
roq).  For,  since  man  is  twofold,  constituted  of  soul  and  body, 
purification  also  is  twofold,  that  which  is  incorporeal  by  that 
which  is  incorporeal,  but  that  which  is  physical  by  that  which  is 
physical.  The  water  indeed  purifies  the  body,  but  the  Spirit  seals 
the  soul,  that  having  been  sprinkled  {ippavTKJutvot)  as  to  the  heart 
by  the  Spirit  and  washed  as  to  the  body  with  pure  water  {v.aOapui 
uduTc),  we  may  come  unto  God.  Therefore  being  about  to  go 
down  into  the  water  do  not  regard  the  bareness  of  the  water  (rw 
(/ic?M  rou  So«7o?),  but  expect  salvation  from  the  power  {ivspyzia)  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  for  without  both  it  is  impossible  to  be  perfected 
{TshiwOTi'j(i.i).  It  is  not  I  that  say  this,  but  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
has  the  power  of  the  case  ;  he  says,  '  Except  a  man  be  born  again,' 
and  adds,  '  by  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God.'  Nor  has  one  perfect  grace  who  being  baptized  by  the 
■water  (rw  udari.)  has  not  received  the  Holy  Spirit;  nor  if  any  one 
distinguished  by  good  works  should  fail  to  receive  the  seal  by  water 
{pi  udaroq)  will  he  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  This  dec- 
laration is  bold,  but  it  is  not  mine ;  it  is  Jesus  who  declares  it. 
Here  is  the  proof:  Cornelius  a  just  man  deemed  woi'thy  of  the 
vision  of  angels,  whose  prayers  and  alms  were  as  a  monument 
before  God  in  heaven,  on  whom  with  his  fellow-believers  the  Spirit 
was  poured  out  (ine'/oOrj),  after  the  grace  of  the  Spirit,  '  Peter 
commanded  them,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  be  baptized.' 
In  order  that,  the  soul  having  been  regenerated  through  faith  (dcd 
T^c  r/ffT£w-:),  the  body  also  might  receive  grace  through  the  water 
('Jta  TOO  uoa-oq).  But  if  any  one  wishes  to  know  why  grace  is 
given  through  water  {dta  udaroq)  and  not  through  some  other  ele- 
ment, reading  the  Scriptures  he  will  find  out.  For  water  is  some 
great  thing,  the  best  of  the  four  great  elements  of  the  world;  and 
before  the  six  days'  work  '  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the 
water.'  .  .  .  The  laver  within  the  tabernacle  was  the  symbol  of 
baptism  {(jnp.^okov  too  jianrtfrnaroq).'^ 


QUALITY    COMMUNICATED    TO    BAPTIZING    WATER.      555 

Augustine  YI,  255:  "Christ's  baptism  was  not  like  that  of 
John  with  water  only^  hut  also  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  so  that  whoso- 
ever believes  in  Christ  might  be  regenerated  by  that  Spirit  (de 
ilia  Spiritu)  by  whom  {de  quo)  Christ  was  begotten  (generatus).^^ 

YI,  1209:  "You  ought  not  to  estimate  these  waters  by  the 
sight  but  b^'  the  mind.  .  .  .  God  sanctified  through  which  ...  by 
virtue  of  his  power,  secret  sins  which  are  not  seen  are  washed 
away.  The  Holy  Spirit  works  in  that  water,  so  that  those  who 
before  baptism  were  guilty  of  many  sins,  and  would  have  burned 
with  the  devil  in  eternal  fire,  merit,  after  baptism,  to  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

This  is  evidence  enough  to  show  that  Patristic  baptism  cannot 
be  effected  without  the  joint  presence  and  coaction  of  water  and 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  and,  consequently,  that  that  baptism  was  some- 
thing else  than  simple  dipping  into  simple  water  which  constitutes 
the  solitaire  gem  of  the  theory.  This  truth,  however,  may  be 
enforced  by  a  few  passages  which  make  special  mention  of  the 
power  on  which  baptism  depends,  and  without  which  no  amount 
of  water  and  no  mode  of  using  water  could  efiect  this  baptism. 

The  Baptizing  Power,  Moral  and  Divine.  Tertull.  II,  375 : 
"  Christ  cleanses  the  stains  of  the  seven  capital  sins — idolatr}'^, 
blasphemy,  murder,  adultery,  fornication,  false  witness,  fraud. 
Wherefore  Naaman  washed  in  the  Jordan  seven  times,  as  if  each 
one  separately  and  that  at  the  same  time  he  might  receive  expia- 
tion of  the  whole  seven,  for  the  power  (vis)  and  fulness  of  one 
washing  belongs  to  Christ  alone." 

The  "vis"  ascribed  to  baptizing  water  is  essentially  diverse 
from  that  accompanying  the  Jordan  water.  No  physical  quality 
or  power  can  cleanse  the  soul  of  "  the  seven  capital  sins." 

EusEBius  II,  1212:  "When  Constantine  thought  that  the  end 
of  his  life  had  come,  and  that  this  was  the  time  for  the  purification 
Qcaddpasioq)  of  all  sins  of  his  life,  and  believing  that  these  would 
be  thoroushl}'^  cleansed  from  the  soul  hy  the  power  (duvd/iec)  of  the 
mystical  words  and  the  saving  washing,  he  expressed  his  desire 
for  the  rite  'for  the  salvation  of  God,'  and  'for  the  seal  of  immor- 
tality.' " 

Gregory  Naz.  II,  396  :  "  The  image  of  the  Emperor  stamped 
in  wax  from  a  ring  of  iron  or  gold  is  the  same,  so  is  the  power  of 
baptism  ((ianrifT/xaroq  dijvarj.t-:)  the  same,  whether  administered  by 
presbyter  or  bishop,  for  the  grace  is  of  the  Spirit." 

II,  421 :  "I  have  three  ovei-pourings  upon  the  wood  with  which 


656  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

I  will  purify  the  sacrifice,  kindling  a  fire  by  water,  that  most  won- 
derful thing !  and  will  overthrow  the  prophets  of  idolatry,  using 
the  poiuer  {(iuvdiu:;)  of  the  mystery." 

Epiphanius  II,  880 :  "  Christ  coming  to  the  waters,  giving 
rather  than  receiving,  illumining  them,  inventing  them  with  power 
(ivduva/iwv)  for  the  sake  of  those  afterward  to  be  perfected, 
.  .  .  that  they  might  receive  poioer  (tyjv  duva/M)  proceeding  from 
him." 

This  investiture  of  the  waters  with  the  power  (duvaixcc;^  vis,  virtus, 
qualifas)  to  baptize  =  to  remit  sin  and  to  regenerate,  has  a  like 
generic  character  with  the  investiture  of  the  Apostles  with 
"  power "  (dr'>varj.c(;)  by  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  Apostolic  office. 
The  nature  of  the  power  in  the  two  cases  differs ;  but  the  inves- 
titure with  a  power  thoroughly  changing  the  condition  of  the 
recipient,  with  the  ability  to  exercise  that  power  to  change  the 
condition  of  others,  is  common  to  both,  and  in  both  cases  the 
power  conferred  is  said  to  ba^jtize  alike  the  waters  and  the  Apos- 
tles. 

The  "  power  "  {duvajxiz)  conferred  upon  the  Apostles  and  their 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  conferring  of  such  power 
is  thus  presented  by  C3a-il. 

Cyril,  985  :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  descended  that  he  might  endue 
with  power,  and  that  he  might  baptize  the  Apostles  {Iva  ivdoarj 
dovujjM  {y-'i^)  Iva  jSaTTTifTrj  tdIx;  a~(i(>r6h)u^ ).  For  the  Lord  says,  'Ye 
shall  be  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit  not  man}'  days  hence.'  The 
grace  {yjffn^)  is  not  limited,  but  the  power  {duvaixtq)  is  complete. 
For  as  one  covered  and  baptized  (^hSwwv  y.a)  ,SamiX.6iievuq)  in  the 
waters  is  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  the  waters,  so  also  they  were 
completely  baptized  by  the  Spirit.  But  the  water  is  poured  around 
(jtepr/j'irai)  externally,  while  the  Spirit  completely  baptizes  the 
soul  internally.  And  why  wonder?  Take  a  physical  illustration, 
trivial  and  simple,  but  useful  to  less  cultivated  persons.  If  fire 
penetrating  through  the  density  of  ii'on  renders  the  whole  fire, 
and  that  which  was  cold  becomes  hot,  and  that  which  was  black 
becomes  bright ;  if  fire  being  matter  works  so  readil}',  entering 
within  material  iron,  why  do  you  wonder  if  the  Holy  Spirit  enters 
within  the  inmost  parts  of  the  soul?  .  .  .  'And  filled  all  the  house 
wliero  tliey  were  sitting.'  The  house  was  made  the  receptacle  of 
tlie  spiritual  water.  Tlie  disciples  sat  within,  and  the  whole  house 
was  filled ;  they  were  therefore  completely  baptized  according  to 
the  promise.     They  were  invested  {ivedoaUrjaav)  both  soul  and  body 


QUALITY    COMMUNICATED    TO    BAPTIZING    WATER.      557 

with  divine  and  saving  vesture  (k'i^du/rtv).  'And  cloven  tongues  as 
of  fire  sat  on  each  of  thera,  and  they  were  all  filled  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.'  They  received  fire,  not  burning,  but  saving  fire,  destroy- 
ing indeed  the  thorns  of  sins,  but  illumining  the  soul." 

1.  In  this  passage  "to  endue  with  power,"  and  "to  baptize," 
are  equivalent  expressions.  The  editor  says  he  has  introduced 
"  and  "  between  them — "  that  he  might  endue  with  power,"  and 
"  that  he  might  baptize."  Whether  with  or  without  this  connec- 
tive the  phrases  are  equivalent  and  mutually  expository.  They 
ai'e  so  used  in  Scriptui-e — "  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  "  (Acts  1 :  5)  ;  "  Ye  shall  receive  power  {Suvaiuv)  from  the 
Holy  Ghost"  (v.  8).  It  was  the  "power"  (duvafj.'.<;)  given  to  the 
waters  which  baptized  them  ;  it  was  the  "  power  "  {duva/M<;)  given 
to  the  Apostles  which  baptized  them.  Herein  is  renewed  evidence 
that  a  thorough  change  of  condition,  assimilating  to  the  charac- 
teristic of  the  power  effecting  such  change,  is  a  baptism. 

2.  The  double  illustration  b^-^  an  object  perfectly  encompassed 
in  water,  and  a  mass  of  iron  penetrated  and  pervaded  by  fire, 
thoroughly  changing  the  condition  of  the  iron,  and  assimilating 
it  to  that  of  fire,  converting  coldness  into  hotness,  blackness  into 
brightness,  sustains  the  results  of  this  Inquiry  into  the  nature  of 
a  baptism  in  the  most  absolute  manner.  It  is  also  a  perfect 
exemplification  of  the  definition  given  by  Basil.  An  object  wholly 
within  water,  without  limitation  of  mode  in  effecting  such  condi- 
tion, or  of  time  in  abiding  in  such  condition,  has  been  insisted  upon 
throughout  this  Inquiry  as  a  physical  baptism.  Such  is  the  bap- 
tism spoken  of  by  Cyril.  Such  a  condition  is  not  a  momentary 
dipping.  A  dipping  is  precluded  by  its  very  nature  of  momeuta- 
riness  from  being  a  baptism.  A  dipping  into  baptizing  water  may 
eflTect  a  baptism  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  water;  but  the 
dipping,  in  such  case,  is  no  more  the  baptism,  than  the  dipping 
white  linen  into  Tyrian  purple  is  the  resultant  purple  dye.  Cyril 
had  no  idea  of  resting  his  illustration  in  the  simple  encompassing 
of  an  object  with  water  for  an  indefinite  period ;  that  would  by  no 
means  answer  his  purpose.  He  wants  influence.  Nothing  can 
more  fully  develop  influence  than  the  enfolding  of  an  object  within 
the  influential  agency.  And  the  consequent  penetrating,  per- 
vading, and  controlling  influence,  thoroughly  changing  the  condi- 
tion of  an  object,  becomes  the  basis  of  the  secondary  use  of  ^anziZw 
in  Classic  writers,  and  is  its  exclusive  use  in  religious  applications 
among  all  writers,  Jewish,  Inspii'ed,  and  Patristic.     Therefore  it 


558  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

is  that  a  mass  of  iron  not  covered  over  in  fire,  but  fully  under  its 
influence,  however  that  influence  may  have  been  brought  to  bear 
upon  it,  and  made  through  all  its  substance  fiery,  hot,  and  bright, 
is  baptized  by  fire.  So,  Cyril  says,  the  soul  is  baptized  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  not  by  an  external  surrounding,  but  by  penetrating, 
pervading,  and  controlling  the  soul  in  its  inner  being. 

3.  The  idea  of  tlie  house  being  filled  with  "spiritual  water," 
and  the  Apostles  being  baptized  in  it  because  they  were  sitting 
in  the  house,  is,  of  course,  neither  founded  in  Scripture  nor  in  fact. 
But  if  it  were  the  theory  would  be  ruined;  for  in, such  a  baptism 
there  would  be  lacking  both  the  form  of  the  act  and  the  momen- 
tariness  essential  to  the  act.  But  again;  such  encompassing  bap- 
tism would  not  suit  Cyril's  purpose  any  more  than  it  would  suit  the 
teaching  of  the  Scriptures.  If  the  Apostles  had  remained  sitting 
in  the  house  encompassed  by  "spiritual  water"  until  this  hour, 
they  would  no  more  have  received  the  scriptural  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  than  if  they  had  been  sitting  on  the  house-top,  and  no  drop 
of  "  spiritual  water  "  had  ever  come  down  from  heaven. 

The  Apostles  were  not  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost  until  his  in- 
fluence entered  within  their  souls  and  left  there  his  own  divine 
light  and  grace  as  tokens  of  his  "  power."  Neither  here  nor 
anywhere  else  do  the  Scriptures  know  anything  of  an  outward 
encompassing  baptism.  And  in  this  respect  Patristic  baptism  is 
identical  with  that  of  the  Scriptures.  That  baptism  is  a  baptism 
of  "  power,"  the  power  of  a  divine  influence,  and  the  momentary 
encompassing  of  the  naked  body  with  the  water  in  which  this 
power  was  supposed  to  reside,  was  merel}-  a  mode  for  developing 
that  power  in  "ex  ordine"  baptism,  but  was  neither  the  baptism, 
nor  in  any  wise  essential  to  the  baptism,  as  everj^  page  of  Patristic 
writings  through  a  thousand  years  clearly  shows. 

A  few  passages  showing  the  development  of  this  <5'Jva,aj?  as  an 
agency  will  now  be  presented. 

The  dwx/j.'.^  of  baptizing  loater  as  an  agency.  Gregory  Naz. 
111,403:  "The  grace  of  baptism  (XikTpoIo  ;^«/j;?)  is  one  of  the 
helps  given  to  men.  For,  as  the  children  of  the  Hebrews  escaped 
death  by  the  christic  blood  {aliian  yinaTw)  which  purified  the  door- 
posts when  the  first  born  of  the  Egyptians  perished  in  one  night, 
so,  also  to  me  is  this  baptism  (<r<pfidyc^)  of  God  whicli  delivers 
from  evil ;  a  seal  indeed  to  infants  {vr}rudy(nq)  but,  also,  a  healing 
and  the  best  seal  to  grown-up  men,  divinely  flowing  from  Christ." 


QUALITY    COMMUNICATED    TO    BAPTIZING    WATER.      559 

This  metrical  version  is  given  : 

....  "  Prsesidium  unum  est  lustrica  lympha, 
Nam  velut  Hebrseis  perfusi  sanguine  postes 
A  pueris  olim  arcebant  pestemque  necemque 
Una  primigeni  fetus  cum  nocte  perirent 
j^gypte,  signum  nobis  est  baud  secus  unda 
Lustralis  ;  signum  pueris  tantum  modo,  verum 
Grandibus  et  signum  simul  et  medicina  salubris, 
Munilico  a  Christo  manans."  .  .  . 

Such  is  the  helpful  agency  residing  in  this  baptizing  dovaiw:. 

Augustine  VI,  695  :  "  The  devil  rages  when  he  sees  us  freed 
from  his  oppression  by  (per)  the  water  of  baptism.  Cry  to  your 
Moses,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  he  may  smite  with  the  rod  of 
his  Cross  the  sea  of  baptism,  so  that  the  water  may  return  and 
cover  the  Egyptians,  so  that  as  none  of  the  Egyptians  remained, 
none  of  your  sins  may  remain." 

Under  the  duvaiuq  of  this  water  sins  were  baptized  (Classically) 
in  the  pool  and  le.ft^  after  the  dipping  of  the  subject,  at  its  bottom^ 
as  were  the  Egyptians  in  like  manner  baptized  and  left  at  the 
bottom  of  the  sea. 

Tertull.  I,  1202:  "The  waters  were  commanded  in  the  be- 
ginning to  bring  forth  living  creatures.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at  therefore  if  the  waters  in  baptism  are  able  to  give  life.  .  .  . 
If  I  were  to  relate  all  the  power  {vis)  of  this  element,  or  how 
great  an  instrument  {instrumentum)  it  is,  I  am  afraid  that  I 
should  appear  to  rehearse  the  praises  of  water  rather  than  the 
qualities  of  baptism." 

Water  has  a  "  power  "  (uis,  Suvajuq)  making  it  competent  as  an 
agency  (instrumentum)  "  to  give  life."  This  is  enough  for  our 
present  purpose,  the  showing  that  baptizing  water  is  not  a  mere 
receiving  element,  but  is  an  agency  whose  dova;j.c^  (patristically 
regarded)  is  divine. 

Another  line  of  proof  showing  the  impossibility  that  water 
should  be  regarded  as  baptizing  by  inclosing  its  object,  and  not 
by  its  power  exerted  in  thorouglily  changing  the  condition  of 
such  object  howsoever  that  power  might  be  exerted,  is  seen  in 
the  use  of  Cases  and  Prepositions,  as  in  the  following  examples: 

Gases  and  Prepositions  reject  receptiinty  and  establish  agency. 
Cyril,  930 :  "  Our  bodies  have  received  oneness  through  (per) 
that  washing  which  is  for  incorruption ;  but  our  souls  through 
(per)  the  Spirit.     1247  :  As  Naaman  the  Syrian  leper  baptized 


560  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

himself  seven  times  in  the  Jordan  and  was  purified,  so  we  lepers 
by  sin  are  purified  through,  the  holy  water  {dta  rod  aywo  ubaroi) 
and  the  invocation  of  the  Lord,  from  old  sins  ;  like  new-born 
children,  we  are  spiritually  born  again,  as  the  Lord  said:  'Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  again  through  water  and  Spirit  (55  vdaro^  /.ai 
nvsn/j.aro';)  he  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' " 

Clemens  Alex.  I,  285 :  "  Our  sins  ai-e  remitted  by  one  perfect 
remedy  {llaiwviut  (paptm/.w)  spiritual  Baptism  {Aoycxw  ftanrKT/ian). 
For  all  our  sins  are  immediately  washed  away  and  immediately 
we  are  no  more  sinful." 

Justin  Martyr,  793:  "For  Christ  being  the  first  born  of 
ever}^  creature,  became  also  the  beginning  of  another  race  which 
was  born  again  by  him,  through  water  (5;  vdaTo<;),  and  faith,  and 
wood,  which  was  the  mystery  of  his  Cross." 

Origen  II,  100:  "They  who  are  regenerated  through  the  di- 
vine baptism  {8ia  too  dsioo  BaitTiaiiaroz)  are  placed  in  Paradise, 
that  is,  in  the  church." 

Gregory  Naz.  Ill,  960:  "The  washing  of  Christ  was  the  pu- 
rification of  my  waters.  The  water  and  the  blood  fiowing  to- 
gether from  his  side  was  the  twofold  Baptism,  by  washing  and  by 
suffering  (^hiurpuu  xai  -dUuw:).'''' 

Jerome  XI,  587  :  "  There  flowed  out  water  and  blood."  "  Re- 
mission is  by  {per)  blood  ;  Baptism  is  by  {per)  water."  593  :  "  I 
baptize  you  with  water,  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Spirit." 
"  What  difference  is  there  between  water  and  the  IIol}^  Spirit 
who  was  'borne  above  the  water?'  Water  is  the  agency  of  man 
{miniderium  /io??imis),  but  the  Spirit  is  the  agency  of  God  {min- 
iHterium  Dei)." 

If  there  is  force  in  evidence  this  will  sufllice  to  take  the  water 
of  baptism  out  of  the  category'  of  a  quiescent  receiving  element 
and  place  it  among  the  most  energetic  of  agencies. 

Passing  by  other  evidence  I  proceed  to  adduce,  finally,  on  this 
aspect  of  the  case,  evidence  from  the  manner  in  which  the  water 
is  said  to  have  been  used,  to  show  that  it  occupied  in  relation  to 
the  baptism  the  position  of  agency,  and  that  the  baptism  was  not 
a  physical  covering  within  simple  water: 

Sprinkling,  loaahing,  dipjnng,  not  baptism,  but  means.  Alex- 
ander I,  Papa  1005:  "We  bless  the  water  sprinkled  with  salt 
{sale  conspersam)  that  all  sprinkled  {asjjersi)  by  it  may  be  sanc- 
tified and  purified  {sanctijicevtur  et  purificentur),  which  we  com- 
mand to  be  done  by  all  priests.     For  if  the  ashes  of  a  heifer 


QUALITY    COMMUNICATED    TO    BAPTIZING    WATER.      561 

« 

sprinkled  with  blood  sanctified  and  cleansed  the  people  {aanctifi- 

cabat  atque  mundabat),  much  more  water  sprinkled  with  salt  and 
consecrated  by  divine  prayers,  sanctifies  and  cleanses  the  people. 
And  if  by  salt  sprinkled  by  the  prophet  Elisha  the  sterilit}^  of  water 
was  healed,  by  how  much  more  having  been  consecrated  by  di- 
vine prayers  does  it  take  avA'ay  the  sterility  of  human  things,  and 
sanctifies,  and  cleanses,  and  purges,  and  multiplies  other  bless- 
ings? For  if  we  believe  that  the  sick  were  healed  by  a  touch 
of  the  hem  of  the  Saviour's  garment,  by  how  much  more  are  ele- 
ments divinely  consecrated  by  the  power  (virtute)  of  his  sacred 
words,  whereby  human  frailty  receives  healing  of  body  and 
soul?" 

This  salt-sprinkled  water  was  not  the  "  baptizing  water,"  but 
it  did,  like  that,  secure  a  "  power  "  (virtus)  to  purify,  to  sanctify, 
to  purge,  and  to  bless,  the  body  and  the  soul.  And  this  power 
was  developed,  like  that,  by  sprinkling.  And  as  this  purification, 
sanctification,  purgation,  and  blessing  of  the  bod^^  and  the  soul, 
was  not  the  sprinkling,  but  was  a  result  effected  by  the  sprinkling, 
so,  the  remission  of  sins  and  the  regeneration  of  the  soul  is  not 
the  sprinkling  of  baptizing  water,  but  is  the  result  produced  by 
it.  It  is  a  patent  error  to  suppose  that  salt  sprinkled  in  a  foun- 
tain, or  heifer  ashes  sprinkled  on  masses  of  people,  or  consecrated 
salt  water,  or  water  impregnated  with  a  divine  Suvaixf:^  has  no  con- 
trolling power  beyond  the  spot  upon  which  the  drops  may  fall. 
The  entire  fountain  is  healed  though  the  great  body  of  the  gush- 
ing waters  has  not  been  touched  by  the  salt ;  the  whole  mass  of 
the  people  is  healed  although  individuals  may  not  have  been 
touched  by  one  particle  of  the  heifer  ashes;  and  the  whole  "body 
and  soul "  is  purified  and  sanctified  by  the  consecrated  and  im- 
pregnated water  through  the  falling  of  sprinkling  drops.  It  is 
the  wildest  of  errors  to  suppose  that  iSa-riZu)  and  jSanrKr/ia  have  a 
physical  representation  in  these  water  droppings ;  their  represen- 
tation is  found  exclusively  in  the  result  of  this  action,  and  the 
breadth  of  that  result  is  to  be  measured  not  by  the  size  of  a  drop, 
but  by  the  far-reaching  "  virtus  "  of  the  consecrated  water  of 
Alexander,  and  of  the  duva/xi:;  of  the  impregnated  Patristic  water. 
This  breadth  is  said  to  be  complete — to  cover  "  body  and  soul," 
and  it  is  to  this  completeness  in  their  changed  condition  which 
originates  and  finds  exposition  in  jSanTt^u)  and  fid7:rifffj.a. 

If  the  theory  asserts  that  Patristic  writers  in  treating  of  Chris- 
tian baptism  use  these  terms  to  express  physical  relations  and 

36 


562  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

results,  they  must  make  their  assertions  in  the  ears  of  those 
unacquainted  with  these  writings  if  an  admiring  auditory  is  ex- 
pected. 

Tertullian  I,  1169 :  "  Our  hands,  whicli,  with  the  whole  body, 
we  have  once  washed  in  Christ  (in  Christu  seviel  lavimus)^  are 
clean.  But  the  Jew  daily  washes  all  the  members  of  his  body, 
yet  is  never  clean.  Certainly  his  hands  are  always  defiled  with 
the  blood  of  the  prophets  and  are  bloodied  forever  with  that  of 
the  Lord  himself" 

This  washing  of  "  the  hands  "  (not  with  gloves  on)  and  of  "the 
whole  body  "  (not  with  clothes  on)  shows  that  the  naked  body 
was  brough"t  in  contact  through  all  its  parts  not  to  meet  any  de- 
mand of  panT'Xw  but  to  secure  the  "virtus"  in  Christo  communi- 
cated to  the  waters.  There  was  no  physical  washing  contemplated; 
as  the  whole  passage  shows  that  it  was  a  spiritual  washing,  once 
for  all,  cleansing  spiritual  defilements  ;  there  was  no  physical 
covering  contemplated  as  a  physical  baptism:  1.  Because  a  mo- 
mentar}'  covering  is  not  a  baptism  ;  2.  Because  it  was  a  spiritual 
cleansing.  Tlie  Annotator  says :  "  Tertullian  by  this  washing 
alludes  to  the  rite  of  baptism  in  which  men  naked  (nudi)  were 
thrice  covered  in  water."  The  water  is  used  as  an  agency,  how- 
ever used,  and  for  a  spiritual  and  not  a  ph^'sical  washing. 

I,  1197:  De  BaptUmo.  "  Happj^  sacrament  of  our  water,  by 
which  having  been  wash6d  (abhiti)  from  sins  of  former  blindness, 
w€  obtain  eternal  life." 

These  are  the  opening  words  of  Tertullian's  treatise  of  Baptism. 
They  show:  1.  "Our  water"  to  be  water  of  a  wholly  diverse 
nature  from  the  water  of  lieathenism,  Judaism,  or  heresy  ;  2.  The 
washing  effected  by  '-'•our  water"  was  not  a  physical  washing;  it 
did  not  depend  upon  any  physical  quality  of  water,  and  conse- 
quently the  water  could  not  be  used  for  a  physical  covering  (as 
an  end)  since  this  involves  a  })urel3'  physical  quality  inherent  in 
all  water;  but  the  washing  Avas  purely  spiritual  through  that 
divine  quality  singularly  imparted  to  "our  water"  for  this  special 
purpose  and  for  which  it  was  alone  adequate.  Again,  therefore, 
we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  the  truth  that  this  water  acted  as 
an  agency  and  that  its  function  was  spiritual  and  not  physical. 

I,  1201:  De  Baptismo.  "There  is  nothing  which  so  hardens 
the  hearts  of  men  as  the  sitnplicit}'^  which  appears  in  the  operation 
of  the  divine  works  and  the  magnificence  revealed  in  the  result; 
as  here  also,  since  with  so  much  simplicity,  without  pomp,  with- 


QUALITY    COMMUNICATED    TO    BAPTIZING    WATER.      563 

out  novel  means,  and  without  cost,  a  man  going  down  into  the 
water  and  dipped  (tinctus),  during  the  utterance  of  a  few  words, 
arises  not  much  or  not  at  all  cleaner  (mundior),  therefore,  an 
eternal  result  is  thought  to  be  incredible.  .  .  .  Water  first  brought 
forth  living  creatures  ;  it  is  not  wonderful,  therefore,  if  water,  in 
Baptism,  produces  life." 

Tertullian  in  this  passage  repudiates  a  physical  washing — "  a 
man  is  not  much  or  not  at  all  cleaner  "  physically  after  his  baptism 
than  he  was  before  it.  Nor  did  the  Patrists  know  anything  of  a 
symbol  washing  in  "our  water,"  But  there  was  a  washing;  a 
washing  of  amazing  power  and  compass.  If  this  washing  was 
neither  physical  nor  symbol  it  must  have  been  spiritual.  If  it 
was  spiritual,  then  it  depended  upon  a  divine  power.  What  de- 
pends on  a  divine  power  cannot  depend  upon  quantity  or  mode. 
A  spiritual  washing  may  be  represented  by  the  sprinkling  of  that 
which  takes  away  defilement  of  sin  and  thus  washes  the  soul, 
as  well  as  by  any  other  means.  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanses 
from  all  sin.  Therefore  we  have  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling ;"  there- 
fore "the  heart  is  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience  ;"  and  there- 
fore "  we  are  washed  by  the  blood  of  Him  that  loved  us."  The 
Patristic  washing  is  never  physical,  never  s^'mbolical,  alwa3^s  real 
and  spiritual,  through  "  the  jimver  of  the  passion,"  developed  by 
martyr  blood,  by  penitential  tears,  and,  equally,  hy  sprinkling 
drops  or  covering  pool. 

Augustine  IX,  379:  "  When  we  say  that  Christ  baptizes,  we  do 
not  say,  with  visible  service,  as  Petilian  thinks  or  wishes  to  think; 
but  with  hidden  grace,  with  hidden  power  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as 
was  said  of  him  by  John  the  Baptist,  '  Hie  est  qui  baptizat  in 
Spiritu  saucto.''  Nor  as  Petilian  saj^s,  has  he  ceased  to  baptize; 
but  he  does  still,  not  with  service  of  body,  but  by  the  invisible 
work  of  his  divinity.  For  because  we  sa}*,  'He  baptizes,'  we  do 
not  sa}^,  '  He  holds  and  dips  (tingit)  the  bodies  of  believers  in 
water ;'  but  he  invisibly  cleanses,  and  that  the  whole  Church  .  .  . 
where  ministers  are  seen  to  operate  corporally,  Christ  washes 
(abluit),  Christ  cleanses  {muy\dat).  Therefore  no  one  may  arro- 
gate to  himself  what  belongs  to  God." 

482 :  "  Good  men  and  bad  men  baptize  so  far  as  the  visible 
ministry  is  concerned ;  but  He  whose  is  both  visible  baptism  and 
invisible  grace,  baptizes  invisibl}'^  through  them.  Therefore  both 
good  and  bad  can  dip  {tingere  poatiunt)  ;  but  He  only  who  is  always 
good  can  wash  (abluere)  the  conscience." 


564  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Augustine  believed  in  a  severe  interpretation  of  the  words 
"  This  is  He  that  baptizeth,"  limiting  them  absolutely  to  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  While  allowing  men  a  visible  ministry  in 
baptism,  he  peremptorily  denied  them  the  power  to  baptize.  He 
did  not  admit  that  men  performed  one  baptism  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  performed  another  baptism.  Neither  Augustine  nor 
his  associates  believed  in  two  baptisms.  He  did  believe  that  men 
bad  power  to  dip  (tingere)  men  in  water ;  but  he  did  not  believe 
that  this  was  baptism.  He  repudiates  it  as  nothing  but  a  "dip- 
ping." He  believed  in  no  baptism  which  did  not  wash  the  soul; 
and  he  believed  that  the  power  to  do  this  was  not  intrusted  to 
any  man,  but  reserved  solely  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Augus- 
tine, then,  was  no  believer  in  a  water  dipping  as  Christian  bap- 
tism, while  he  did  believe  that  (in  ex  ordine  baptism)  a  man  was 
dipped  into  "  our  water  "  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  baptizing,  wash- 
ing the  conscience  and  the  soul. 

A  more  absolute  discrimination  between  dipping  and  baptizing, 
and  between  a  water  covering  the  result  of  dipping,  and  baptism 
the  result  of  baptizing,  and  the  repudiation  of  the  one  as  the  other, 
could  not  be  made  than  has  here  been  made  by  Augustine.  The 
theory  affirms  that  dipping  into  water  is  the  essence  of  Christian 
baptism  without  which  it  cannot  exist,  and  therefore  sprinkling 
with  water  cannot  be  Christian  baptism,  because  the  act  of  sprink- 
ling is  not  the  act  of  dipping,  and  sprinkling  water  does  not  cover. 
To  these  erroneous  dicta  is  usually  added  the  additional  and  griev- 
ous error  of  Petilian,  that  "  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  ceased  to 
baptize."  We  affirm  with  Augustine  that  dipping  is  not  baptiz- 
ing either  heathenly  or  Christianly,  that  a  water  covering  for  a 
moment  or  for  eternity  neither  is  nor  has  anything  (ex  necefisitate) 
to  do  with  Christian  baptism,  and  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by 
the  Holj-  Ghost,  is  the  sole  administrator  of  real  Christian  bap- 
tism, while  men  administer  a  symbol  baptism  in  the  use  of  water 
by  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  dipping;  for  these  modal  uses  of 
water  sprinkling  and  pouring  we  have  full  scriptural  warrant,  while 
dipping  has  absolutely  none,  being  purely  a  usage  and  doctrine 
of  men.  Tiiis  error  which  identities  dipping  into  water  with 
Ciiristian  baptism  is  greatl^'^  to  be  deplored,  because  if  not  solely 
originating  in  yet  largely  sustained  by  the  error  which  attributed 
a  divine  quality  conferred  upon  the  water,  which  it  exercised  in 
tlie  remission  of  sins  and  regenerating  the  soul,  thus  inducing  (for 
the  fuller  attainment  of  this  blessing)  the  covering  of  the  body 


QUALITY    COMMUNICATED    TO    BAPTIZING   WATER.      565 

(and  that  naked)  in  this  water  of  such  miraculous  "  virtue ;"  and 
further,  because  in  these  latter  days  it  brings  forth  as  its  offspring: 
1.  A  denial  of  the  Churchhood  of  the  great  body  of  those  who 
are  confessedly  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  2.  A  denial  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  sole,  abiding  Baptizer  of  his  people  ;  3. 
A  steady  looking  toward  the  old  error  of  a  sin-remitting  water 
dipping  openly  proclaimed  by  the  followers  of  Alexander  Camp- 
bell, and  an  occasional  forthputting  of  word  and  hand  by  other 
friends  of  the  theory,  toward  the  same  result. 
Error  is  never  sterile. 


\ 


2TN0AnTn. 


PATRISTIC   DIPPING   INTO   WATER 

WAS   NEITHER   PATRISTIC   BAPTISM    NOR   CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM    BUT 

BURIAL    01<'   SIN    IN    THE    WATER    AND    SYMBOL   BURIAL 

WITH    CHRIST    IN    HIS    "  HEW    SEPULCHRE." 

"  Symbol  water  burial  not  Christian  Baptism.^' 

The  theoiy  attempts  to  enlist  Rom.  6 :  4 ;  Coloss.  2:12;  as 
auxiliaries  in  maintaining  that  dipping  into  water  is  a  burial; 
that  this  clipping  burial  is  a  burial  now,  with  Christ  in  the  Jor- 
dan, and  now,  with  Christ  in  the  sepulchre  ;  and  that  this  momen- 
tary burial  in  a  water  sepulchre  is  Christian  baptism.  Patristic 
writers  are  also  invited  to  enlist  under  this  banner.  But  neither 
Paul  nor  Patrist  will  listen  to  such  call  for  such  end.  Paul  says : 
I  believe  that  all  who,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  are,  thereby,  baptized  into  his  sin-remitting  death ;  and 
that  all  who  are  baptized  into  his  sin-remitting  death  are  thereby 
united  with  him  in  his  sepulchre  burial  in  order  that  they  may  be 
united  with  him  in  his  resurrection  to  newness  of  life;  thus  re- 
ceiving by  true  Christian  baptism,  the  remission  of  sins  and  the 
regeneration  of  the  soul.  But  I  do  not  believe  in  any  baptism  of 
Christ  by  burial  in  the  sepulchre  ;  nor  in  any  dipping  into  water 
as  an  imaginary  resemblance  to  a  rock-burial  baptism,  which  has 
no  existence  either  in  fact  or  in  possibility.  The  Patrist  says :  I 
believe  in  a  baptism  of  sin  by  which  its  life  is  destroyed  and  it 
is  left  drowned  at  the  bottom  of  the  pool ;  and  I  believe  in  a 
momentary  covering  in  water  ("ea;  ordine^')  as  a  symbol  of  the 
covering  of  ChrisVs  body  in  the  sepulchre;  but  I  do  not  believe 
that  sin  baptized  and  left  drowned  in  the  pool  is  Christian  bap- 
tism, nor  yet,  that  a  momentary  water  covering,  symbol  of  the 
sepulchre  covering,  is  Christian  baptism. 

That  the  above  statement  truly  represents  the  faith  of  Paul  I 
have  endeavored,  heretofore,  to  show  ;  that  the  faith  of  the  Chris- 
(  566  ) 


DIPPING    INTO    WATER    IS    NOT    BURIAL    BAPTISM.      567 

tian  Fathers  is  no  less  truly  stated  might  be  inferred  from  what 
has  been  already  adduced ;  but  more  direct  evidence  may  be  de- 
sirable and  will,  therefore,  now  be  offered. 

Dipping  into  Water  is  not  Burial  Baptism. 

Clemens  I,  Rom.  Pont..,  1044:  "Then  he  comes  to  the  water. 
The  priest  giving  thanks  to  him  who  underwent  death  through  the 
Cross  for  all,  a  type  of  which  (uL  runm)  is  the  baptism  of  regen- 
eration. .  .  .  Let  the  priest  say :  Look  down  from  heaven  and 
sanctifj'  this  water;  and  grant  grace  and  power  {ydpoj  v.ai  dbvaixiv) 
so  that,  the  baptized  according  to  the  command  of  Christ,  may 
he  crucified  with  him,  may  die  with  him,  may  be  buried  with  him, 
and  may  rise  with  him  to  the  adoption  which  is  in  him,  dying  to 
sin  and  living  to  righteousness." 

This  passage  teaches  that  baptism  is  effected  by  the  dwap-tq  of 
divine  grace,  that  they  who  are  so  baptized  receive  a  co-crucifix- 
ion, a  co-death,  a  co-burial,  and  a  co-resurrection  with  Christ,  and 
that  "  the  baptism  of  regeneration  "  is  a  type  of  death  througli 
the  Cross  (Od'^a-au  8id  rou  araufjuu).     There  is  no  dipping  burial. 

DiONYSius  Areop.,  404  :  "  As  the  body  is  covered  (y.aXu7:r6/j.ev()v) 
in  the  earth,  the  complete  covering  (xdhji^'c-)  by  water,  may  natur- 
ally be  received  as  a  likeness  (eiWva)  of  death  and  burial.  This 
symbol  teaching  (^(juii^oXtxrj  dtdaaxaXia)  initiates  the  sacredly  bap- 
tized by  the  three  coverings  {y.o.Tadoas<n)  in  the  water  to  the  imita- 
tion of  the  divine  death  and  three  days'  and  nights'  burial  of 
Jesus  the  giver  of  life." 

Observe ;  This  covering  in  the  water  is  based  on  the  covering 
of  a  dead  body  in  the  earth.  Now,  the  burial  of  the  dead  body 
in  the  ground  was  never  called  a  baptism  by  heathen,  Jew,  or 
Christian  ;  but  death  upon  the  Cross  is  declared  to  be  a  baptism  ; 
what,  now,  is  the  wit,  to  say  nothing  about  the  authority',  for  aban- 
doning the  baptism  of  the  Cross,  to  conjure  up  one  in  the  sepulchre 
where  is  none  by  diviue  or  human  authority  ?  Observe  again  : 
There  is  nothing  said  about  iSanrc'Cw  in  this  eartli-burial,  it  is  xa- 
XoTTTco ;  there  is  nothing  said  about  [id-Tiffim  in  this  water-burial 
likeness,  it  is  xaXOc/ng.  Observe  yet  farther :  There  is  no  appear- 
ance of  fidTZTttj/ia  in  those  threefold  coverings,  it  is  xaraSCxnc;.  Now, 
bearing  in  mind  that  neither  xalijTz-w,  nor  y.albiln^,  nor  xaTaduai<;,  ever 
expresses  the  Patristic  l^anrtZo^  or  ftdnntT/jia,  what  shall  we  say  to 
the  attempt  to  introduce  a  baptism  under  this  calypsis  ? 


568  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

There  is  declared  to  be  a  likeness  between  the  covering  in  water 
and  the  covering  in  earth ;  but  there  is  )io  claim  whatever  for  a 
BAPTISM  in  the  one  or  in  the  other.  It  is  also  true,  that  there  is 
no  more  Scriptural  ground  for  the  one  covering  in  water,  than 
there  is  for  the  three. 

484,  49V  :  "  Wherefore  also  the  grace  of  baptism  (for  this  is  to 
be  begotten  of  God)  is  perfected  by  the  ointment  poured  out  by 
the  chief  priest  in  the  form  of  a  cross  upon  the  purifying  bap- 
tistery, exhibiting  spiritually  the  spiritual  ointment — the  Lord 
undergoing  death,  for  the  pool  exhibits  his  death  and  the  deliver- 
ing by  his  triumphant  descent  into  deatli  (for  he  could  not  be 
overcome  by  death)  those  baptized  into  his  death.  This  is  called 
a  hidden  saying,  because  the  reason  of  the  baptism  into  Christ 
(rou  £;?  Xpt(T-dv  {janziaiiaroi;)  is  hard  to  be  understood  by  many.'' 

The  view  here  presented  of  the  water  of  baptism  is  not  that  of 
a  grave  but  of  the  death  of  Christ  through  his  crucifixion  and 
seems  to  be  grounded  in  an  attempt  to  give  visibility  to  the  ideal 
baptism  taught  by  Paul — "  As  many  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  have  been  baptized  into  his  death."  This  is  a  wholly  dif- 
ferent thing  from  burial  and  covering  in  a  grave.  If  there  had 
never  been  an  attempt  to  give  a  physical  vesture  to  the  ideal  bap- 
tism of  Scriptui-e  there  probably  would  not  have  been  so  manj^, 
even  to  this  day,  who  find  it  "  hard  to  understand  the  meaning 
of  the  baptism  irito  Christ." 

Dion.  Areop.  (tom.  2Mst.),  133:  "Baptism  is  into  the  death  of 
the  Lord ;  the  water  being  for  the  burial,  the  oil  for  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  Seal  for  the  Cross,  the  ointment  for  the  confirmation 
of  the  confession." 

The  declaration  is  express  that  the  baptism  is  "  into  the  death 
of  Christ."  A  water  covering  as  a  likeness  to  a  grave  covering, 
can  never  be  converted  into  a  baptism  into  the  death  of  Christ! 
The  burial  of  Christ  was  a  wholly  distinct  and  diverse  ipatter  from 
the  baptisvi  of  Christ. 

Tertull.  II,  79:  "We  are  tiirice  merscd  {mergitamur)  doing 
something  more  than  the  Lord  commanded  in  the  gospel." 

We  see,  here,  how  mixed  and  self-refuting  human  conceits  be- 
come. Hovv  impracticable  to  identif}'  three  coverings  in  water 
with  the  one  burial  in  the  sepulchre!  What  evident  finger-marks 
of  men  is  the  going  to  and  fro  from  one  burial-covering  likeness, 
to  three  coverings  for  the  three  days'  and  nights'  interment !  And 
then,  without  resting,  passing  on  to  three  dippings  for  the  three 


DIPPING    INTO    WATER    IS    NOT    BURIAL    BAPTISM.      569 

persons  of  the  trinity !  And  then  comes  the  tlieory  with  one  dip- 
ping (entrance  and  outrance)  for  a  baptism,  which  has  no  out- 
come to  it ! 

Tertull.  II,  862  :  "An  ignoratis,  quod  quicunque  in  Christum 
Jesum  tiucti  sumus,  in  mortem  ejus  tincti  sumus?  Consepulti 
ergo  illo  sumus  per  baptisma  in  mortem." 

This  translation  of  Rom.  6  :  3,  4,  by  Tertullian  is  introduced 
because  it  may  show  more  strikingly  to  some  the  distinction 
between  baptism  and  burial,  than  it  appears  under  the  more 
familiar  Greek  form.  And  for  a  like  reason  I  do  not  put  it  into 
an  English  dress. 

No  writer  uses  tingo,  tinguo^  as  the  representative  of  fiaTzri'^u)  so 
frequently  as  does  Tertullian.  This  usage  is  very  noticeable  and 
claims  attention.  At  present  I  only  remark:  a  conclusion  based 
on  this  usage  that  tingo  dip  is  the  equivalent  representative  of 
ftanrc'^uj,  would  be  a  great  error.  Tingo  as  used  for  dipping  into 
water,  and  in  ideal  relations  based  on  such  use,  is  a  veiy  different 
word  in  its  force  and  development,  from  tingo  as  used  in  relations 
with  coloring  liquids  and  in  ideal  relations  based  on  such  use. 
The  same  is  true  of  fidnrw,  as  shown  in  the  first  volume  of  this 
Inquiry.  It  was  there  also  stated,  that  there  was  an  affinity  in 
character  and  approach  toward  equality  of  power  between  /?«::- 
Tc^u)  and  iSaTZTcu  to  dye  (with  development  under  that  usage)  as 
there  was  not  between  [ianTiX,M  and  i3dnTw  to  dip.  The  same  re- 
mark holds  good  as  to  tingo  in  like  relations.  And  it  is  only  under 
this  limitation  that  tingo  can  become  in  translation  the  proper 
substitute  for  iSaizziZw. 

Try  the  truth  of  these  statements  on  the  passage  before  us. 
Suppose  "tincti  sumus"  to  represent  tingo  dip.  The  dipping  is, 
from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  ideal.  Every  ideal  use  of  dip, 
based  in  its  relations  to  colorless  liquids,  is  expressive  of  limita- 
tion and  feebleness.  Any  one  who  has  only  "  dipped  into  various 
studies,"  has  devoted  but  limited  time  to  their  investigation  and 
has  reaped  but  trivial  results.  If  this  is  the  usage  here,  then, 
"  all  who  have  been  dipped  into  Jesus  Christ,"  have  been  in  rela- 
tion with  Him  but  for  a  brief  period  and  have  received  no  benefit 
worth  mentioning  from  such  relation.  This  beyond  all  question 
4s  the  import  of  such  a  dipping.  Is  this  the  truth  which  Paul 
announces  ?  Nothing  could  be  a  greater  libel  on  the  word  of 
God.  Then  "  tincti  sumus  "  can  by  no  possibility  represent  tingo 
DIP  as  related  to  colorless  fluids.     Try  it  as  representing  tingo  to 


570  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

DYE.  This  meaning  is  secured  by  the  use  of  the  verb  in  relations 
with  coloring  liquids.  And  from  such  use  this,  in  itself  feeble, 
word  secures  power  and  develops  a  controlling  and  permanent  in- 
fluence. Thus  while  white  linen  dipped  into  water  experiences  an 
effect  trivial  and  transient,  the  same  linen  dipped  into  a  purple  (\ye 
undertroes  a  profound  and  abiding  change.  And  the  same  word 
in  kindred  ideal  relations  shows  like  development,  thus  :  The  man 
who  "dips  his  hand  in  a  brother's  blood"  incurs  crimson  guilt 
wliich  no  time,  no  tears  can  wash  away.  "  Dipped  in  the  rebel- 
lion "  is  a  phrase  used  by  Sir  Walter  Scott  to  express  the  abiding 
condition  of  a  man  as  permanently  colored  or  characterized  bj'' 
'the  quality  of  rebellion,  so  as  to  render  liable  to  legal  pains  and 
penalties.  So,  "  dipped  in  infamy.''''  There  must  be  some  strong 
and  readily  communicated  quality  as  the  basis  of  such  usage.  Is 
there  such  quality  in  Jesus  Christ?  "His  name  shall  be  called 
Jesus  because  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins."  He  is 
Christ  because  "  anointed  by  the  H0I3'  Ghost,"  in  whom  is  power 
to  regenerate  the  soul.  Does  he  part  readily  with  these  qualities  ? 
"Ask  and  ye  shall  receive."  The  requisites,  then,  for  the  usage 
are  fully  met.  What  then  is  the  purport  of  Paul's  declaration — 
"  Quicunque  in  Christum  Jesum  tincti  sumus"?  It  is  this:  As 
many  as  have  (ideally)  been  introduced  into  Jesus  Christ  have 
been  brought  under  the  influence  of  his  distinguishing  character- 
istics— power  to  remit  sin  ;  power  to  regenerate  the  soul — and 
your  condition  is  tliereby  thoroughly  and  abidingly  changed,  an- 
alogousl}-  to  an  object  introduced  into  a  strong  and  penetrating 
dye.  And  thus  we  vindicate  and  mirror  the  Greek — oaoi  i^ia-ria- 
Oriiiev  ££c  ^^pt(Tiiiv  'IrjtTow  "  as  many  as  have  been  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ"  have  been  brought  thoroughly'  under  his  siii-remitting 
power  as  Jesus,  and  under  his  regenerating  power  as  the  Christ 
anointed  with  and  Baptizer  by  the  H0I3'  Ghost. 

Need  I  say  that  in  this  baptism  there  is  no  water  ?  Alas  !  that 
Patrist  or  theorist  should  ever  (unwittingly)  have  taken  away 
Jesus  Christ  and  substituted  for  Him  a  pool  of  icater,  hereby  per- 
plexing many  so  that  the^'  find  it  "  hard  to  understand  what  bap- 
tism into  Jesus  Christ  means,"  no  less  now  than  in  the  time  of 
Dionysius. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  all  bai)tized  into  Jesus  Christ  are,  as  Paul 
declares,  "  baptized  into  his  death  "  (as  that  whereby  he  secures 
the  power  which  belongs  to  him  as  "Jesus"  and  "Christ")  it 
follows,  that  "  baptism  into  his  death  "  is  as  diverse  from  lying 


DIPPING    INTO    WATER    IS    NOT    BURIAL    BAPTISM.      571 

with  him  in  the  sepulchre,  as  regenerate  life  is  from  a  shrouded 
corpse ;  but,  that  unity  which  is  established  by  baptism  into  him 
as  a  crucified  Redeemer  making  us  participant  in  all  the  blessings 
of  redemption,  gives  us  the  right  to  union  with  him  in  his  sepul- 
chre also,  that  we  may  share  in  the  new  life  of  his  resurrection. 
If  then,  Patristic  water  covering  be  made  a  symbol  of  the  grave 
covering  it  is  a  thing  wholly  distinct  (both  in  their*  eyes  and  in 
Scripture  teaching)  from  Christian  bajytism. 

Origen  IV,  372:  "As  the  physical  body  of  Jesus  was  nailed 
to  the  Cross,'buried,  and  raised,  so  the  body  of  Christ,  the  saints, 
was  nailed  to  the  Cross  with  Christ.  .  .  .  Therefore'  not  only  was 
every  saint  nailed  to  the  Cross  with  Christ,  but  also  was  buried 
together  with  Christ,  as  Paul  says,  '  We  were  buried  together 
with  Christ.'  " 

Whenever  the  theory  can  show,  that  saints  are  buried  in  the 
sepulchre  by  the  action  of  nailing  to  the  Cross,  they  may  proclaim 
it  as  the  exegesis  of  (TOveTd<prjij.ev  aurai  dcd  TOO  iSa-TitT/mro':  sl^  tuv 
Odvaxdv ;  until  then  we  rest  in  the  faith  of  Origen  and  of  Paul, 
namely :  because  the  saints,  who  are  the  body  of  Christ,  were 
nailed  with  Him  to  the  Cross,  therefore,  they  were,  also,  buried 
with  Him.  Any  who  can  receive  the  nailing  to  the  Cross  as  a 
means  of  burial  can  substitute  the  theory'  for  the  Bible  ;  and  any 
who  are  disposed  to  reject  the  Patristic  likeness  between  a  cover- 
ing in  water  and  a  covering  in  the  grave,  may  follow  the  theory 
and  do  what  no  Patrist  ever  did,  to  wit,  convert  a  water  dipping 
into  Christian  baptism. 

lY,  1038  :  "  '  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
into  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death?  Tor  we  were  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  iiis  death  ;'  teaching  by  these  things 
that  if  any  one  is  first  dead  to  sin,  he  is  necessarily  buried  with 
Christ  by  baptism  ;  but  if  any  one  is  not  first  dead  to  sin,  he 
cannot  be  buried  with  Christ.  For  no  living  person  is  ever 
buried.  But  if  he  is  not  buried  with  Christ  neither  is  he  lawfully 
baptized.  If  any  one  shall  not  have  been  born  fy^om  above,  he 
cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven, /or  this  is  to  he  baptized  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  .  .  .  But  attend  yet  more  closely  to  this  mysti- 
cal order.  It  is  necessary  for  thee  first  to  die  to  sin,  that  thou 
mayest  be  buried  with  Christ.  Burial  belongs  to  the  dead.  If 
thou  dost  yet  live  to  sin  thou  canst  not  be  buried  with  Clirist, 
nor  be  placed  in  his  new  sepulchre,  because  thy  old  man  lives 
and  cannot  walk  in  newness  of  life.    The  Holy  Spirit  has  carefully 


572  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

taught  that  the  sepulchre  in  which  Jesus  was  buried  must  be  new 
and  that  he  was  wrapped  in  clean  linen,  that  every  one  who 
wishes  to  be  buried  with  Christ  bring  nothing  of  oldness  to  the 
new  sepulchre,  nothing  of  uncleanness  to  the  clean  linen.  .  .  . 
But  some  one  maj^  ask :  Why  does  the  Apostle  in  these  passages, 
speaking  of  our  baptism  and  of  Jesus,  say :  '  We  are  buried  with 
him  by  bajytism  into  death  ;'  and  again,  '  If  we  die  with  him  we 
shall  also  live  with  him;'  and  yet  again,  'If  we  suffer  with  him 
we  shall  also  reign  with  him  ;'  and  never  has  said.  We  have  been 
baptized  with  him  ;  since  it  appears,  that  as  death  is  compared  to 
death,  and  life  to  life,  so,  also,  baptism  should  be  compared  to 
baptism.  But  observe  how  careful  is  the  Apostle,  for  he  says, 
'  Whosoever  of  us  have  been  baptized  into  Christ.'  Therefore  our 
baptism  is  'into  Christ.'  But  Christ  himself  is  said  to  have  been 
baptized  by  John  not  with  that  baptism  which  is  '  into  Christ, 
but  with  that  baptism  which  is  into  the  Law.  For  so  he  says 
himself  to  John,  '  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us 
to  fulfil  all  righteousness.'  By  which  he  shows,  that  the  baptism 
of  John  was  the  ending  of  the  old,  not  the  beginning  of  the  new. 
Perhaps  also  you  may  inquire  this:  Since  the  Lord  himself  said 
to  the  disciples  that  they  should  baptize  all  nations  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  wh3^  does 
this  Apostle  use  only  the  name  of  Christ  in  baptism,  saying, 
'  Whosoever  of  us  have  been  baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ,' 
when  clearly,  it  may  not  be  regarded  as  lawful  baptism  except 
under  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  But  notice  the  discretion  of 
Paul  since  in  the  present  passage  he  did  not  desire  to  discuss  so 
much  the  character  of  baptism  as  that  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
conformably  with  which  he  would  persuade  us  that  we  should  die 
to  sin  and  be  buried  together  with  Christ.  And  clearly  it  was 
unsuitable  when  he  spake  of  death,  that  he  should  mention  either 
the  Father  or  tile  Holy  Spirit.  For  the  word  was  made  flesh  and 
where  the  flesh  is  there  death  is  properly  spoken  of.  Nor  was  it 
suitable  that  he  should  say, '  Whosoever  of  us  have  been  baptized 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  or  into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
have  been  baptized  into  his  death.'  .  .  .  Still  further,  this  may 
be  inquired  :  If  we  are  dead  to  sin  and  have  been  buried  together 
with  Christ,  and  have  risen  together  with  him,  it  would  seem  nec- 
essary to  show  how,  according  to  this  form,  we  are  buried  with 
him  three  daj's  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.  And 
see  if  we  can  make  three  days'  burial  with  Christ,  accepting  the 


DIPPING    INTO    WATER    IS    NOT    BURIAL    BAPTISM.       573 

full  knowledge  of  the  Trinity :  the  Father  is  Light  and  in  his 
Light,  which  is  the  Son,  we  see  Light,  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  we 
also  make  three  nights,  since  we  destroy  the  father  of  darkness 
and  ignorance,  together  with  lying,  which  is  born  of  him,  as  he 
is  both  a  liar  and  the  father  of  it,  and  when  he  speaks  a  lie  he 
speaks  of  his  own,  but  also,  in  the  third  place,  we  destroy  the 
spirit  of  error  which  inspires  false  prophets.  .  .  .  Which  things 
are  opposed  to  the  Trinity  as  night  is  to  da^'^,  and  darkness  to 
light,  and  falsehood  to  truth.  These  things  are  offered  in  expla- 
nation ;  but  if  any  one  perceives  anything  better,  let  him  reject 
these  and  accept  that." 

This  long  extract  is  given  to  show  how  Origen  treats  that  pas- 
sage of  Scripture  which  the  theory  makes  the  great  pillar  of  its 
support.  This  treatment  shows:  1.  The  baptism  is  spiritual  and 
not  phj'sical.  This  is  proved  (1.)  Because  the  baptism  is  '"'•into 
Christ  ;"  (2.)  Because  "  to  be  born  from  above  is  to  be  baptized 
by  the  Holy  Spirit ;"  (3.)  Because  baptism  by  the  Hoh^  Spirit  is 
effected  through  the  agency  of  baptizing  water  and  is  not  a  mere 
covering  in  it ;  (4.)  Because  neither  Origen  nor  any  other  Patrist 
recognizes  a  physical  baptism  as  entering  into  Christianity,  nor 
any  other  spiritual  baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  Christian  bap- 
tism, save  that  onlj''  which  is  by  baptizing  water,  or  its  equiva- 
lent, blood,  tears,  etc. 

2.  There  is  a  radical  discrimination  between  ^^  baptism  into  the 
death  of  Christ  "  and  burial  "in  the  new  sepulchre  with  Christ." 
Death  must  precede  burial ;  "  no  living  person  is  ever  buried." 
Baptism  into  the  death  of  Christ  not  merely  pi'ecedes  burial  with 
Christ,  but  is  causative  of  it  as  qualifj'ing  for  and  giving  a  right 
to  such  burial  by  the  union  which  it  establishes  with  Christ,  by 
the  cleansing  from  all  sin,  by  the  atoning  blood  shed  in  his  death, 
thus  fitting  to  lie  in  the  "new  sepulchre,"  and  by  the  "clean 
linen,"  ready  for  the  resurrection  life.  3.  The  covering  in  the 
water  is  made  a  likeness  to  the  covering  in  the  sepulchre ;  but 
this  had  no  more  to  do  with  a  likeness  to  the  "  baptism  into 
Christ's  death,"  than  it  had  to  do  with  a  likeness  to  piercing 
thorns  and  driven  nai'ls.  Nor  has  the  likeness  established  be- 
tween a  water  covering  and  a  sepulchre  covering  by  a  given 
mode  of  using  water  any  more  of  Bible  authority,  than  Origen's 
attempt  to  expound  the  three  days'  and  the  three  nights'  burial. 
4.  The  plea  of  the  theory,  "  Follow  the  example  of  Christ ;  be 
baptized  as  he  was  baptized,"  is  repudiated  by  Origen  as  having 


574  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

no  truth  to  rest  upon.  He  declares  that  Christ's  baptism  (however 
the  water  was  used)  was  not  a  phj^sical  baptism  but  "  into  the 
Law,"  and  was  another  baptism  from  that  of  his  people,  which  is 
not  "  into  the  Law,"  but  "  into  Christ."  Origen  never  wrote 
anything  truer  or  more  Scriptural  than  this. 

The  baptism  of  Christ  was  not  physical ;  the  water  was  but  a 
symbol  of  the  nature  of  the  baptism  which  was  "  into  the  law"  = 
"into  THE  FULFILMENT  OF  ALL  RIGHTEOUSNESS."  Li  this  baptism, 
as  meritoriously  fulfilled  in  his  life  and  death,  none  could  share. 
It  was  a  baptism  such  as  none  other  had  undertaken,  and  which 
never  would  be  undertaken  again.  It  was  triumphantly  "  finished  " 
in  his  death  upon  the  Cross.  And  now  his  people  are  baptized 
into  THAT  DEATH  which  is  replete  with  all  the  qualities  of  "fulfilled 
righteousness  "  and  endured  penalt}-,  filling  "the  cup"  which  his 
Father  held  to  his  lips,  and  those  qualities  are  all  imparted  to  his 
people  baptized  into  his  wondrous  death  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
receiving  the  remission  of  sins,  the  regeneration  of  the  soul,  to- 
gether with  aflBliation  arid  everlasting  subjection  to  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is,  and  nothing  else  than 
this  is.  Christian  baptism.  Origen  and  his  noble  associates  greatly 
and  sadly  erred  when  they  associated  this  baptism  with  its  divinely 
appointed  symbol  rite  to  be  administered  by  men,  merging  the 
symbol  character  while  retaining  the  S3-mbol,  making  its  presence 
an  equal  necessity  with  the  presence  and  mighty  energy  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  But  neither  he  nor  they  so  erred  as  to  mistake  the 
real  baptism  of  Christianity,  and  substitute  .for  it  a  dipping  into 
simple  water.     This  supreme  error  was  reserved  for  the  theory. 

Ambrose  IY,  100:  "Baptism  is  the  death  of  sin  that  another 
birth  ma_y  follow,  which,  the  bod}'^  remaining,  renews  the  man  in 
mind,  all  old  sins  having  been  buried.  ...  It  is  celebrated  by 
water  {per  aquam)^  that  as  water  cleanses  the  filth  of  the  body, 
so  also  we  may  believe,  that  we  are  spiritually  purged  and  re- 
newed from  all  SIN  by  baptism,  and  tliat  what  is  incori)oreal  is 
invisibly  cleansed." 

Ambrose  declares  that  baptism  is  "  tlie  death  of  sin,"  and  that 
"sins  are  buried."  This  is  a  common  statement.  He  refers  to 
the  natural  qualities  of  water  to  cleanse  bodil}^  impurity.  He 
says  spiritual  impurit}'^  is  not  cleansed  by  such  water  but  "  by 
bai)tism,"  which  renews  from  all  sin,  the  iucori)oreal  being  invisi- 
bly cleansed.  ]Japtism,  then,  is  not  the  work  of  "simple"  water, 
nor  is  the  burial  in  baptism  that  of  men  and  women,  but  of  sins. 


DIPPINa    INTO    WATER    IS    NOT    BURIAL    BAPTISM.      575 

This  is  the  real  burial;  while  the  likeness  to  the  sepulchre-burial 
is  another  thing  entirely,  and  consists  in  the  momentary  covering 
by  dipping. 

429 :  "  For  there  (in  baptism)  the  old  man  is  deposited  {deponitur 
buried),  and  the  new  man  is  assumed." 

Gregory  Naz.  II,  352:  "John  baptizes,  Jesus  approaches,  per- 
haps that  he  may  sanctify  the  Baptizer,  but  evidently  that  he  may 
bury  in  the  water  all  the  old  Adam,  yet  before  these  and  through 
these  sanctifying  the  Jordan,  as  he  was  Spirit  and  flesh,  so  per- 
fecting by  the  Spirit  and  water.  The  Baptist  did  not  receive 
him,  saying  '  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  b}^  thee,'  and  add  this, 
for  thee.  For  he  knew  that  he  was  about  to  be  baptized  by  mar- 
tyrdom (tw  fj.aprupi(p  iSamiaO-r^ffoixsvoq).  Jesus  said,  'Suffer  it  to  be 
so  now.'  For  he  knew  that  after  a  little  while  he  would  baptize 
the  Baptist  (abrtK;  /Sanrtffwv  fian-car-^'^).^' 

Here  is  another  real  burial  in  baptism.  The  Saviour  had  no 
sins  of  his  own  to  bury,  so  he  is  represented  as  burying  the  sins 
of  his  people — "  all  the  old  Adam  " — in  the  Jordan.  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  this,  although  an  ideal,  is  still  a  real  burial  in 
its  representation  ;  while  the  "  likeness  "  to  a  grave  covering  in 
the  dipping  is  another  thing  altogether,  and  makes  no  claim  to 
be  really,  ideally,  or  in  any  other  way  to  be  a  burial,  but  by  a 
momentar}'^  xaAo^c?  to  make  some  resemblance  to  the  covering  in 
a  burial. 

Observe  the  freedom  with  which  ^jar.ri'^ut  is  used:  1.  Of  John's 
baptizing ;  2.  Of  Jesus  baptizing  John,  expressed  in  sanctif3^ ; 
3.  In  baptizing  the  Jordan,  expressed  in  the  same  manner ;  4.  In 
the  baptizing  of  John  by  martyrdom;  5.  In  the  baptizing  of  John 
by  Jesus  at  some  future  time,  without  farther  specification.  And 
this  is  the  word  which  means  "  dip  and  nothing  but  dip  through 
all  Greek  literature." 

Gregory  Naz.  II,  362:  "As  Christ  the  giver  of  this  gift  is 
called  by  many  and  diverse  names,  so  also  is  the  gift.  .  .  .  We 
call  it  gift,  grace,  baptism,  ointment,  illumination,  the  vesture  of 
incorruption,  the  washing  of  regeneration  (^Murpov  izaXiyysveaiaq), 
the  seal,  and  an3^thing  that  is  honorable.  It  is  called  gift,  because 
it  is  given  to  those  who  first  contribute  nothing ;  grace,  because 
it  is  given  to  debtors;  baptism,  6ecaii«e  sin  is  buried  ((TuvOuTzrorj.ii'rjq) 
in  the  waters;  ointment,  because  it  is  sacred  and  regal,  for  such 
things  are  anointed;  illumination,  because  it  is  shining;  vesture, 
because  it  is  a  covering  of  our  shame  ;  washing  (^Xourpov),  because 


576  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

it  is  a  washing  out  (fz-rXuacv) ;  seal,  because  it  is  a  protection  and 
mark  of  sovereignty." 

This  language  of  Gregory  in  expounding  l3dT:Tt/Tfj.a,  as  grounded 
in  the  burial  of  sin  in  the  water,  is  in  harmony  with  other  cases 
of  sin-burial  which  have  come  under  notice,  but  is  worthy  of 
special  attention  as  showing  the  possible  philological  force  and 
application  of  iSdnrcff/ia.  The  use  here,  of  course,  is  not  physical; 
sin  cannot  have  a  phj'sical  burial;  but  this  giving  to  sin  a  body 
and  burying  in  the  water,  and  calling  it  a  /3a7rr£<r//.a,  is  clearly  predi- 
cated on  its  derivation  from  /SaTrrf^w,  which  buries  things  and  per- 
sons in  the  depths  of  the  sea.  Such  burial,  without  recovery, 
might  properly  be  called  a  jSa-KTiff/xa ;  but  I  know  of  no  such  use 
of  the  word.  It  first  appears  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  deriva- 
tive from  the  New  Testament  ^anvi^a),  and  is  like  it  used  solely  in 
ideal  relations,  to  express  profound  and  abiding  spiritual  condi- 
tions, resultant  from  the  operation  of  spiritually^  baptizing  agen- 
cies. Its  usage  in  this  respect  is,  like  that  of  the  verb,  in  the 
most  absolute  accord  with  the  demands  of  physical  use.  As  sin 
buried  in  the  water  has  no  emergence  therefrom,  this  condition 
of  burial  is  with  philological  propriet}'  called  a  [idnrtaiia.  So,  if 
all  sin  be  taken  from  the  soul  and  buried  for  evermore,  the  soul 
becomes  pure,  washed,  sins  remitted,  and  soul  regenerated ;  and 
to  this  condition,  as  thoroughly  and  abidingly  changed  by  spirit- 
ual influence,  fidnrKrixa  is  with  no  less  propriety  applied  ;  and  this 
is  its  constant  scriptural  and  Patristic  use.  In  either  aspect  we 
see  how  far  the  theory  is  removed  from  any  just  conception  as  to 
the  meaning  of  ftii.r.-KTim.  A  dipping  it  never  was,  nor  ever  can 
be,  by  any  philological  possibility. 

Cyril,  444:  "Jesus  died  bearing  the  sins  of  the  world,  that 
having  slain  sin  he  might  raise  thee  in  righteousness;  and  so  thou 
descending  into  the  water  and  bin-ied,  in  a  certain  way  (rfyojtov 
Tivd),  in  the  water,  as  he  was  buried  in  the  rock,  that  he  might 
raise  you  up  again  walking  in  newness  of  life." 

Again,  this  covering  in  the  water  is  made  neither  a  baptism 
nor  like  to  a  baptism,  but  like  his  "burial  in  rock.^''  To  call  this 
water  covering  Christian  baptism  is  as  wild  an  utterance  as  to 
call  sun-setting  sun-rising. 

1089:  "And  as  Christ  was  truly  {aXfjOSx;)  crucified,  and  buried, 
and  raised,  3'ou  have  been  thought  worthy,  according  to  (^xazd) 
the  baptism  in  a  similitude  (iv  o/Mnw/xuTt),  to  be  co-crucified,  co- 
buried,  and  co-raised  with  him." 


DIPPING    INTO    WATER    IS    NOT    BURIAL    BAPTISM.       577 

In  contradistinction  from  the  actual  crucifixion,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Clirist,  Cyril  sa3'S,  that  the  baptism-crucifixion, 
burial,  and  resurrection,  were  not  realities  but  similitudes.  Will 
any  one  acquainted  with  Patristic  writings  say  that  Christian 
baptism  in  their  estimation  was  not  a  reality,  but  a  similitude,  a 
shadow  ?  Surely,  if  there  was  anything  in  heaven  or  on  earth 
which  they  believed  to  be  a  reality,  it  was  Christian  baptism. 
But  they  did  not  believe  the  crucifixion,  or  the  burial,  or  the 
resurrection  introduced  into  the  administration  of  this  ordinance 
to  be  reality,  therefore  they  did  not  believe  the  one  or  the  other, 
or  all  together,  to  be  Christiau  baptism.     And  so  the}^  testify. 

Hilary  I,  977 :  "  He  is  unworthy  of  Christ  who  does  not  take 
his  cross,  by  which  we  suflfer  with  him,  die  with  him,  are  buried 
with  him,  rise  with  him,  and  follow  him." 

This  use  of  crucifixion,  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  (apart 
from  baptism),  shows  that  their  introduction  there  is  of  accident 
and  not  of  essence,  and  that  the  baptism  is  perfect  without  them, 
as  is  conclusively  shown  in  the  case  of  all  baptisms  of  martyrs  by 
their  blood,  of  penitents  by  their  tears,  and  of  Clinics  by  sprinkled 
water,  in  none  of  which  cases  were  these  ''similitudes"  practiced, 
but  in  all  of  which  cases  real  baptism  was  received.  The  theory 
may  lament  over  the  loss  of  a  dipping-burial  into  blood,  and  tears, 
and  sprinkled  water  (for  in  this  loss  she  loses  her  all),  but  no 
Patrist  sympathizes  in  her  grief,  for  he  retains  still  unharmed  his 
perfect  baptism. 

Augustine  II,  360 :  "  If  the  Sacraments  had  no  likeness  to 
those  things  of  which  they  are  sacraments  they  would  not  be 
sacraments.  From  this  likeness  they  receive  their  names.  So, 
the  Apostle  says  of  baptism :  '  We  are  buried  together  with  Christ 
through  baptism  into  death.''  He  does  not  sa}^ :  We  signify  burial, 
but  we  are  buried  together." 

Thus  Augustine  very  explicitly  teaches  that  the  water  covering 
which  entered  (among  very  many  other  things)  into  the  ex  ordine 
administration  of  baptism,  was  not  the  baptism  (which  was  a 
reality),  but  was  a  "  likeness"  to  quite  another  thing,  to  wit,  the 
burial  covering  in  the  rock  sepulchre.  1902:  "What  else  is 
the  sepulchre  of  Christ  but  the  rest  o/  the  Christian?  We  are 
strangers  in  the  world,  and  a  sepulchre  has  been  bought  for  us  at 
the  price  of  the  Saviour's  blood.  '  We  are  buried  together  with 
him  through  baptism  into  his  death.'  Baptism,  therefore,  is  to  us 
the  sepulchre  of  Christ,  in  w^hich  we  die  to  sin,  are  buried  to  trans- 

37 


578  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

gressions,  and  the  consciousness  of  the  old  man  being  dissolved 
we  are  made  anew  by  another  birth  with  renewed  infancy.  Bap- 
tism, I  say,  is  to  us  the  sepulchre  of  the  Saviour ;  because  we  there 
lose  our  former  life  and  receive  a  new  life.  Great,  therefore,  is  the 
grace  of  this  sepulchre  whereby  we  receive  a  useful  death  and  a 
more  useful  life.  Geeat,  I  sa}-,  is  the  grace  of  this  sepulchre, 
which  both  purifies  the  sinner  and  vivifies  the  dead ;  he  helping 
who  lives  and  reigns  forever." 

Augustine  like  other  writers  uses  "  baptism  "  to  express  some- 
times the  rite  as  a  whole  ;  sometimes  to  express  a  particular  prom- 
inent feature  of  the  administration,  such  as  the  water  covering 
as  a  likeness  to  the  burial  in  tiie  sepulchre  ;  sometimes  specifically 
the  spiritual  effect  of  the  divinel}'^  impregnated  water  in  changing 
the  condition  of  the  sonl,  which  is  distinctively  Patristic  baptism; 
and  sometimes  the  intermixture  and  coaction  of  two  distinct 
elements,  as  in  the  above,  where  baptism  is  presented  as  "  the 
sepulchre  of  Christ,"  and  the  explanation  has  the  doubleness,  1, 
of  a  covering  simpl}'^  as  a  fluid,  making  the  sepulchre  likeness, 
and  2,  the  dnva/uq  power  of  the  impregnated  fluid,  b}^  which  "  we 
are  made  anew  by  another  birth,"  this  "  power"  being  the  channel 
through  which  "  he  helps  who  lives  and  reigns  forever." 

In  the  following  passages  "baptism"  is  used  in  its  distinctive 
spiritual  meaning. 

VI,  69o :  "  Let  no  one  think  because  he  is  born  again  b}'  water 
and  Spirit,  having  been  imbued  (imijutus)  by  these  mysteries,  that 
he  has  securely  fortified  his  soul  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  .  .  . 
That  water  not  only  cleanses  the  body,  but  frees  the  soul  from 
sin.  But  you  ought  to  know  wh}'  the  power  (imius)  of  tliat  water 
profits  both  soul  and  body.  For  all  water  does  not  cleanse ;  this 
sanctifies  through  (per)  the  consecration  of  the  word.  Take  away 
the  word  and  what  is  the  water,  but  water  ?  The  word  added  to 
the  element  and  it  becomes  a  Sacrament.  Tlie  power  (cirtus)  of 
the  Word  has  cleansed  us  through  (p^r)  the  water,  because  He 
walked  upon  the  waters.  See  the  power  of  the  Word  of  God." 
695:  "The  devil  rages  when  he  sees  us  by  (per)  the  water  of 
baptism  freed  from  his  oppression.  Cry  to  your  Moses,  the  Ijord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  he  may  smile  with  the  rod  of  his  Cross  the  sea 
of  baptism,  so  that  the  water  may  return  and  cover  the  Egyptians, 
so  that  as  none  of  the  Egyptians  remained,  nothing  may  remain 
of  your  sins."  775:  "No  man  can  obtain  eternal  life  (except 
those  who  are  baptized  b}'  their  own  V)lood)  but  through  the  sac- 


DIPPING    INTO    WATER    IS    NOT    BURIAL    BAPTISM.      579 

rament  of  repentance  and  faith,  that  is  through  Baptism,"  IX, 
186:  "Baptism  remains  inseparably  in  the  baptized  person,  for 
into  whatever  depth  of  wickedness  and  into  whatsoever  ab^'ss  of 
sins  the  baptized  may  rush,  even  to  apostasy,  he  does  not  lose 
baptism.  .  .  .  Wherefore  as  baptism  is  in  him  (in  illo)  who  is 
baptized  by  the  Church,  it  is  separated  with  him  (cum  illo)  when 
he  is  sepai'ated  from  the  Church."  202:  "When  inquiry  was 
made  of  C^'prian  whether  there  was  any  difference  between  the 
baptism  of  the  dipped  and  the  sprinkled  {de  Baptismo  linctorum 
et  perfusorum).''^  67  :  "  If  man  baptizes  when  the  baptizer  is 
evidently  good,  but  when  the  baptizer  is  secretly  bad,  then  God 
or  an  Angel  baptizes,  and  every  such  one  is  spiritually  born  such 
as  he  may  be  by  whom  he  is  baptized,  then,  they  who  desire  to  be 
baptized  may  wish  that  the  men  by  whom  the}'  are  baptized  may 
not  be  evidently  good  men  but  secretly  bad  men ;  that  thus  God 
or  an  Angel  baptizing  they  may  secure  a  more  holy  regeneration. 
If  they  would  escape  this  al)surdity,  let  them  confess  that  Christ 
(of  whom  only  it  is  said,  '  This  is  he  which  baptizes  with  the  Holy 
Spirit ')  baptizes  by  every  man,  whosoever  he  may  be,  who  baptizes 
with  the  baptism  of  Christ."  Ill  (altera),  1416:  "The  baptism 
which  John  received  was  called  the  baptism  of  John.  He  alone 
received  such  a  gift:  no  righteous  person  before  him,  none  after 
him,  was  so  honored  as  to  receive  a  baptism  which  should  be 
called  his  baptism.  He  indeed  received  it,  because  he  could  do 
nothing  of  himself.  .  .  .  Since  then  John  received  a  baptism 
which  should  be  properly  called — of  John,  yet,  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  was  unwilling  to  give  his  baptism  to  any  one,  not  that  no 
one  should  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  the  Lord,  but  that 
the  Lord  himself  should  always  baptize:  this  was  done  that  the 
Lord  should  baptize  through  his  ministers,  that  is,  that  those 
whom  the  ministers  of  the  Lord  were  about  to  baptize  the  Lord 
would  baptize,  not  they.  For  it  is  one  thing  to  baptize  b}'^  minis- 
terial service,  and  another  thing  to  baptize  by  power.  For  bap- 
tism is  such  as  he  is  by  whose  power  it  is  given  ;  not  as  he  is  by 
whose  service  it  is  given.  The  baptism  of  John  was  such  as  was 
John;  a  righteous  baptism  as  of  a  righteous  man,  yet  of  a  man, 
but  one  who  had  received  this  grace,  and  so  great  grace  as  to  be 
the  Forerunner  of  the  Lord.  But  the  baptism  of  the  Lord  is  such 
as  is  the  Lord ;  therefore  the  baptism  of  the  Lord  is  divine,  be- 
cause the  Lord  is  God.  But  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  could,  if  he 
so  wished,  give  power  to  any  of  his  servants  that  he  should  be- 


580  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

stow  his  baptism  as  in  his  stead,  and  transfer  from  himself  the 
power  of  baptizing  and  establish  it  in  any  servant,  and  give  as 
great  power  to  the  baptism  transferred  to  the  servant,  as  the  bap- 
tism given  by  the  Lord  should  have.  This,  however,  he  was  not 
willing  to  do,  because  the  hope  of  the  baptized  would  be  in  him 
by  whom  they  would  know  that  thej^  were  baptized.  He  was  un- 
willing, therefore,  that  a  servant  should  place  his  hope  in  a  ser- 
vant. .  .  .  The  Ijovd  retained  for  fiimself  the  POVfi^B,  of  baptizing, 
and  gave  the  ministration  to  servants." 

These  passages  (a  few  among  thousands)  speak  for  themselves. 
They  settle,  1.  A  dipping  into  water  is  not  Christian  baptism  in 
the  theolog)'  of  Augustine,  but  a  regenerate  condition  of  the  soul 
effected  solely  by  the  power  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  through  the 
agency  of  water  under  the  ministry  of  men;  2.  The  error  which 
makes  a  water  covering  Christian  baptism,  is  (patristicall}-)  an 
absurdity;  3.  Burial  is  used  in  connection  with  this  rite,  (1.)  In 
reference  to  an  ideal  burial  with  Christ  (as  one  of  his  body)  in 
the  rock. sepulchre ;  (2.)  In  reference  to  the  momentary  covering 
in  water  by  dipping  into  it,  as  a  "  likeness  "  to  the  covering  in  a 
grave  burial;  (3.)  In  reference  to  the  ideal  drowning  and  burial 
of  sin  in  tiie  pool,  grounded  in  the  actual  drowning  and  burial 
of  the  Egyptians  in  the  water  of  the  Red  Sea ;  (4.)  Burial  is  not 
Christian  baptism.     Equivalence  of  burial  and  baptism  is  absurd. 

This  Patristic  doctrine  of  baptism  is  not  onl^-  erroneous  in  it- 
self, but  must,  of  necessity',  produce  error  by  its  i^romulgation. 
Augustine  was  conscious  of  this  tendency  and  doubtless  saw 
such  fruit  in  fact,  so  as  to  be  constrained  to  utter  the  following 
warning:  "  Let  us  be  very  careful  not  to  make  men  falsel}'  secure, 
saying  to  them,  that  if  they  should  have  been  baptized,  howso- 
ever they  may  live,  they  will  obtain  salvation ;  lest  thus  we  make 
Christians  as  the  Jews  made  proselytes,  of  whom  the  Lord  said  : 
'Wo  unto  you,  Scribes  and  Pharisees!  who  compass  land  and  sea 
to  make  one  proselyte,  but  when  ye  have  made  him,  you  make 
bim  twofold  more  the  child  of  hell  than  yourselves'  (VI,  227)." 

The  following  rebuke  addressed  to  some  heretics  of  his  day  is 
jiot  without  application  in  our  own  time  :  "  Thou  hast  said,  that 
Baptism  is  thine,  that  the  Holy  oil  is  thine,  that  the  Lord's  table 
is  thine,  that  all  those  things  given  by  God  to  the  faithful,  are 
THINK.  What  remains  except  that  thou  shalt  impiously  declare 
thyself  to  be  God  ?"  (IX,  769). 


BAniiza 

IN   A  RELIGIOUS   APPLICATION   DOES   NOT   EXPRESS   A  PHYSICAL 
BAPTISM   OR   A   MOMENTARY   DIPPING. 

General  use. 

It  has  already  been  shown,  that  the  general  use  of  jSaTZTc^oj  by 
Patristic  writers  corresponds  perfectly  with  the  use  of  that  word 
by  Classic  writers.  This  is  true  not  only  in  primary  but  in  sec- 
ondary^ or  figurative  use.  It  is  applied  to  express  the  condition 
of  vessels  lost  at  sea  and  sunk  beyond  recovery  to  the  bottom  of 
the  sea.  It  is  also  applied  to  express  the  condition  of  drowned 
persons.  In  such  applications  it  is  employed  as  the  equivalent 
of  Tzovri^u}^  i3uO{!tu),  and  suchlike  words.  And  as  these  words  are 
used  in  ideal  relations  to  express  influence  of  the  profoundest 
character,  so  jSaTrvi^aj  is  used  in  precisely  similar  relations  to  ex- 
press the  same  idea.  novTC^u)  and  (iuOi'^u)  are  never  used  with  the 
meaning  to  dip  in  physical  relations,  nor  could  any  meaning  de- 
rivable from  "  dip  "  expound  their  force  in  ideal  relations.  The 
same  is  true  of  iSaTzri'Cu).  These  views  are  sustained  by  quotations 
already  adduced. 

Special  Beligious  Application. 

With  such  usage,  which  is  beyond  controvers}-,  it  is  impossible 
that  this  word  could  be  used  in  a  religious  rite  to  express  a  dip- 
ping without  a  complete  revolution  in  its  meaning,  and  the  most 
absolute  contradiction  of  all  its  previous  history  and  contempora- 
neous Patristic  usage. 

We  denj'  the  existence  of  any  such  revolution  or  contradiction. 
We  affirm  the  harmony  of  the  use  of  this  word  in  the  religious 
sphere  with  that  of  its  use  in  every  other  sphere,  whether  by 
Classic  or  Patristric  writers.  We  deny  its  use  to  express  the 
dipping  or  momentary  covering  in  water  which  took  place  in  the 
customary  rite  of  baptism.  We  affirm  its  use  in  connection  with 
an  ideal  element  into  which  it  verbally  introduces  its  object,  but 

(  681  ) 


582  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

out  of  which  it  does  not  withdraw  it,  thus  subjecting  it  to  the  in- 
fluence of  its  characteristic  quality  in  the  highest  degree ;  and, 
also,  its  absolute  use  directl}-  expressive  of  such  influence  with- 
out any  attending  ideal  element. 

Proof. 

1.  Philology  forbids  the  use  of  this  word  to  express  a  dipping 
or  a  designed  momentary  covering.  Such  a  meaning  is  already 
provided  for  in  /Sr/rrw  fimt.  It  is  irrational  to  make  a  second 
word  the  dilto  of  an  already  existing  word.  This  feature  (mo- 
mentary covering)  had  already  been  eliminated  by  fidnzu}  second^ 
in  assuming  the  meaning  to  dye.  It  is  from  this  second  stem 
(substituting  uncolored  quality  for  colored  quality)  and  not  from 
the  first,  that  [ici.r.ri%v)  is  derived.  As  ftdr^no  second.,  is  a  stronger 
word  than  [id-zw  first  (by  reason  of  its  dropping  momentariness 
and  association  with  coloring  qualities)  so,  jSa-ri^^w  is  a  word  of 
power,  because  it  introduces  its  object  really  or  verbally  into  its 
associated  element  and  thus  communicates  the  quality  of  such 
element  in  the  fullest  measure.  Hence  it  is  used  to  express  in 
the  highest  degree  the  development  of  any  quality  where  there 
can  be  no  intusposition,  or  where  the  quality,  or  the  object,  is 
such  that  intusposition  real  or  imaginary  would  not  secure  such 
development.  It  is  treason  to  philology  to  attribute  to  such  a 
word  momentar}'^  withinness  or  trivial  influence. 

2.  Language  development  forbids  such  meaning.  There  is 
nothing  more  certain  than  that  this  word  is  used  both  by  Classic 
and  Patristic  writers  to  express  a  thorough!}^  changed  condition 
without  the  intervention  of  a  covering — as  by  drinking  wine  to 
drunkenness,  or  swallowing  a  drug  inducing  stupor.  Such  a 
secondary  use  could  not  possibly  originate  in  a  momentary  cov- 
ering. It  is  the  natural  and  unavoidable  use  (illustrated  in  many 
other  words)  from  a  primary  meaning  which  puts  its  object  within 
a  fluid  without  limitation  of  time.  Language  development  protests 
against  the  monstrosity  which  allies  the  profoundest  influence 
with  a  dipping. 

3.  Theology  unites  in  this  protest.  A  momentar}'  covering  in 
water  can  produce  only  a  transient  and  trivial  cftect.  The  use  of 
a  word  of  such  primar}'  meaning  in  figure  or  in  secondary  use  can 
only  express  a  result  which  is  limited  in  time  and  power.  But 
this  word  is  used  in  Scripture  in  relations  of  supreme  importance, 


BAPTISM    NOT    A    DIPPING.  583 

and  which,  by  their  nature,  demand  continuance  and  controlling 
power.  Thus  we  have  baptisms  "  into  repentance,"  "  into  the 
remission  of  sins,"  "into  Christ,"  "into  the  Name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  If,  now,  the  leading 
word  in  these  phrases  is  converted  into  a  dipjoing,  the  sentiment 
is  nullified  and  made  the  right  opposite  of  that  which  is  demanded 
by  the  teaching  of  Scripture  and  the  nature  of  things.  Tiie  the- 
ology of  revelation  is  overturned  by  the  doctrine  that  its  great 
teachings  through  (^ar.ri^oj  and  i3dTTTt(Tfj.a  are  grounded  in  a  dipping. 
But  give  to  these  terms  their  proper  force — iutusposition  without 
limitation  of  time  (=  thorough  change  of  condition  specialized 
by  the  characteristic  of  the  receiving  element,  whether  real  or 
ideal)  and  all  the  teachings  of  revelation  are  harmonized  and 
vindicated. 

4.  Essential  truth  joins  in  this  protest.  There  is  no  class  of 
writings  which  so  emphasizes  wilhinness  and  bases  its  vital  truths 
on  this  conception  as  do  the  Scriptures,  The  Father  is  in  the 
Son,  and  the  Son  is  in  the  Father ;  Jesus  Christ  is  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in  the  Name  of  Jesus  Christ ;  the 
redeemed  are  in  Christ,  and  Christ  is  in  the  redeemed,  and  there- 
fore they  are  made  temples  in  which  the  whole  Deit}'^  dwells ;  in- 
spired men  speak  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  speaks 
in  them ;  apostles  being  in  the  Name  of  Jesus  Christ  work  miracles 
and  issue  commands  with  divine  power;  wrath  and  hate  are  ex- 
hansted  b}'  declaring  that  the  Christ  is  in  Beelzebub ;  and  the 
charge  is  as  exhaustively  met  by  the  declaration — "  the  prince  of 
this  world  hath  nothing  in  me."  John  came  in  the  spirit  and 
power  of  Elias  ;  his  Lord  came  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  Sinners  are 
baptized  into  Christ  that  they  may  be  without  spot  or  wrinkle  or 
any  such  thing.  Sinners  washed  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  are 
baptized  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  This  use  of  withinness  to  express  influence  of  the 
most  absolute  fulness,  throughness,  and  completeness,  is  founded 
in  the  reality  of  things.  Through  all  nature  withinness  and  influ- 
ence are  twain-one.  The  God  of  nature  as  the  God  of  revelation 
has  carried  this  nuion  into  his  holj^  Word,  and  no  man  may  put 
asunder  that  which  God  has  joined  together.  It  is  not  true  that 
Christian  baptism  is  a  dipping  (=  a  momentary  inness  with  a 
consequent  outness),  but  is  withinness  without  limitation  of  time, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  within  water. 


684  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

KuTaduvoj,  wmbmui — demergo,  emergo. 

It  is  a  very  strong,  if  not  wholly  conclusive,  argument  against 
a  momentary  water  covering  being  found  in  Scripture,  in  that  no- 
word  expressive  of  such  covering  is  to  be  found  anywhere  in  con- 
nection with  its  baptisms,  as  announced  by  inspiration.  And  it 
is  a  ver}'  strong,  if  not  wholly  conclusive,  argument  in  proof  that 
such  water  covering  was  introduced  independently  of  and  in  con- 
tradiction to  inspiration,  in  that  terms  designating  such  covering 
and  the  necessary  consequent  uncovering  are  to  be  found  every- 
where in  Patristic  writings. 

The  most  common  Greek  terms  to  express  the  water  covering 
in  '■''ex  ovdine^^  baptism  were  xaraSuu)^  -/.a-ddufff:.  These  terms  do 
not  of  themselves  limit  the  time  of  covering.  It  was  necessary, 
therefore,  in  applying  them  to  a  water  covering  in  a  religious  rite 
that  there  should  be  some  evidence  giving  expression  to  such 
limitation.  This  is  found  in  the  equally  extensive  usage  of  the 
related  words  avaSwio^  a\>ddb(nq.  What  was  covered  in  the  water 
by  -/.araduvio  was  uncovered  by  a'^aSuvw.  On  this  usage  it  may  be 
observed,  1.  There  is  no  such  usage  in  the  Scriptures.  The  terms 
xaTudnu)^  y.aTd8u(nq^  are  not  to  be  found  as  words  of  inspiration 
descriptive  of  or  in  an^Mvise  connected  with  the  administration  of 
ritual  baptism.  The  overwhelming  inference  therefore  is,  that 
what  these  terms  were  introduced  to  express  in  Patristic  baptism 
had  no  existence  in  Scripture  baptism.  2.  There  are  no  corre- 
sponding forms  in  Scripture  such  as  xaraiSaizTi^u)^  avaliaTtTi^u).  And 
since  the  object  which  is  covered  by  /?a--j'C«>  can  never  be  uncov- 
ered by  that  word,  and  the  Scriptures  furnish  no  word  for  such 
uncovering,  we  are,  again,  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  new 
words  introduced  by  the  Patrists,  unknown  to  inspired  nomen- 
clature, were  introduced  to  express  new  ideas  equally  unknown 
to  the  inspired  writers.  3.  Patristic  writers  no  more  introduce 
xaTa/5a7rr£Tw,  wML[iar.ri%w^  into  .the  administration  of  the  Christian 
rite  to  express  a  covering  and  uncovering  than  do  inspired  writers. 
There  is  no  such  thing  to  be  found  anywhere  among  numberless 
writers  through  long  centuries  as  the  interchange  of  v.aTa^ia-ri'iu) 
with  y.arad'jvu)^  or  of  dva^anzi'^io  with  dvadi'rMo^  expressive  of  a  water 
covering  and  uncovering.  And,  thus,  again,  we  are  led  to  the 
conclusion  that  these  writers  use  /Sarrrt'^w  just  as  the  inspired 
writers  use  it,  namely,  never  expressive  of  a  water  covering^  in- 


DEMERGO — EMERGO.  585 

troducing  new  terms  to  express  the  new  facts  of  their  own  inven- 
tion, to  wit,  a  water  covering  and  uncovering. 

Demergo — Emergo. 

The  Latin  terms  demergo^  emergo.,  correspondent  with  tlie 
Greek  terms  just  considered,  abound  in  Latin  writers  to  express 
their  accustomed  covering  and  nncovering  in  water.  Now  these 
terms  are  like  both  in  form  and  in  force  to  the  Greelv  xara^uvw, 
w^admio.  They  are  used  for  identically  the  same  purpose,  namely, 
to  express  a  water  covering  and  uncovering.  Can  there  be  any 
rational  doubt  that  these  Latin  words  do  and  are  designed  to 
represent  and  duplicate  those  Greek  words?  But  if  they  do,  then 
these  Latin  words  do  no  more  represent  the  jSaTcrHlaj  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, or  the  iSa-riZu)  of  the  Greek  Patrists  in  Christian  baptism, 
than  do  those  Gi'eek  words  ■/.araSu'^w.^a^'aouvu).  That  this  conclusion 
is  made  impregnably  sure  by  the  fact  that  the  Greek  fia-KziZio  is 
transferred  into  the  Latin  language,  and  employed  by  the  Latin 
like  the  Greek  Fathers  in  relations  and  with  meanings  such  as 
demergo  and  emergo  are  never  employed  in.  If  these  words 
represented  the  usage  and  meaning  of  ^aTzri^oj^  why  transfer  the 
foreign  word  into  the  Latin  ?  Whj^,  when  transferred,  use  it  in 
relations  peculiar  to  the  Greek,  and  to  which  the  Latin  could 
furnish  no  parallel  usage  in  the  history  of  demergo.,  emergo'? 
Wh}'  preserve  the  same  compound  form  with  zaradwco^  avaduvw^  if 
they  were  not  translations  of  and  did  not  fulfil  the  same  offices 
with  these  words  ?  Why  make  them  represent  another  word 
(/3a-Tttw)  to  whose  form  they  are  unlike,  and  which  is  never  in 
the  Scriptures  employed  to  fulfil  that  office  which  their  form 
expresses,  and  which  it  is  confessed,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  do 
fill  ?  That  ^anri'^u)  is  never  used  in  Scripture  to  express  a  cover- 
ing and  uncovering  of  water,  I  hold  to  be  as  certain  as  au}^  prop- 
osition in  mathematics.  That  it  is  ever  used  in  Patristic  writings 
to  express  a  covering  and  uncovering  of  watei',  I  have  never  seen 
adequate  evidence.  That  such  use  may  be  plausibly  asserted, 
and  that  quotations  may  be  made  plausibly  sustaining  such  asser- 
tion on  a  superficial  examination,  is  certain. 

L  Because  (iaTz-iXu)  has  a  usage  by  which  it  covers  its  object  in 
water,  without  limitation  of  time ;  2.  Because  there  is  a  facility 
in  keeping  out  of  view  this  vital  point  of  unlimited  time  and 
metamorphosing  the  word  into  a  limited,  momentary  covering — a 


586  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

dipping ;  3.  Because  there  was,  admittedly,  a  moraentar}'  water 
covering  in  the  ordinary  Patristic  baptism,  and  by  concealing  (wit- 
tingly or  unwittingly)  the  fact  that  another  word  was  used  to 
express  this  covering,  the  disgnised  jSa-rc^w  ma}'  be  introduced  to 
officiate  at  the  dipping;  4.  Becanse  [iar.TiXm  is  employed  vari- 
ously in  connection  with  the  rite  and  inclusive  of  the  water:  (1.) 
It  is  used  to  express  comprehensively  the  rite,  and  consequently 
inclusive  of  the  use  of  the  water.  This  affords  a  very  facile  but  a 
very  groundless  opportunity  to  say,  jSaTzrH^w  here  expresses  the 
manner  of  using  the  water ;  (2.)  It  is  used  more  limitedly  in  con- 
nection with  the  use  of  the  water,  which  being  ordinaril}'  bv  a 
momentary  covering,  there  is  opportunity  to  say  that  this  is  the 
work  of  fia-K-i'^iv^  while,  in  truth,  it  is  the  work  of  xaroSdw  (ex- 
pressed or  understood)  while  the  effect  of  the  impregnated  water 
upon  the  soul  is  expressed  by  the  verb  in  question  ;  (3.)  It  is 
sometimes  used  to  express  the  purifying  effect  in  the  soul,  with- 
out an}-  associate  term  or  circumstance  certainly  to  limit  it  to 
such  application,  and  again  there  is  opportunity  to  introduce  the 
inevitable  dipping.  These  are  some  of  the  reasons  why  plausibility 
is  given  to  the  claim  that  water  covering  in  Patristic  baptism  is 
expressed  by  iSanri^w.  But  if  there  be  one  passage  or  one  fact 
which  conclusively  shows,  that  a  mere  water  covering  in  the 
Christian  rite  was  expressed  by  j3a~T{^oj  I  am  not  aware  of  it. 
Such  a  position  can  never  be  proved  by  the  joint  presence  of /?«::- 
Tt'Cw  and  momentary  covering  in  the  baptismal  pool  against  the 
facts  (1)  that  the  baptizing  water  is  impregnated  water  used  as  an 
agency  to  effect  a  Spiritual  baptisma  ;  (2.)  That  this  baptisma,  as 
declared  in  all  ages,  does  not  depend  upon  a  covering  in  this  im- 
pregnated water ;  (3.)  That  another  word  expresses  the  fact  of  a 
simple  covering,  which  is  never  used  to  express  the  effect  of  such 
covering,  nor  interchanged  with  the  Patristic  [ianriXio  whose  office 
it  is  to  express  the  effect  of  this  covering  (or  the  effect  of  this 
water  used  in  any  other  way)  and  not  to  express  simple  covering. 
If  any  one  thinks  that  a  simple  momentary  covering  can  be 
fastened  on  to  fta~ri%oj  in  any  other  way,  the  course  is  free  for  the 
attempt.  But  we  give  friendly  notice  that  the  course  indicated 
is  but  a  blind  path  and  leads  only  to  disappointment  to  any  one 
settins:  out  on  such  a  mission. 


BAPTISM    NOT    A    COVERING.  587 

Illustrative  Quotations. 

Clemens  Rom.  I,  1045  :  "  For  this  is  the  power  of  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands  ;  unless  such  invocation  be  made,  he  who  is  baptized 
(6  jSanTi^ofisx)^)  only  descends  {/.orafiaivet)  into  the  water  {tlq  udwp) 
as  the  Jews,  and  only  removes  the  impurity  of  the  bod}- ,  not  the 
impurity  of  the  soul." 

Will  any  one  say,  that  ^anri^co  and  y.ara^aivu)  are  here  used  as 
equivalents?  Is  it  not  certain  that  the  latter  refers  to  physical 
covering  effected  by  descending  into  the  water,  while  the  former 
refers  to  the  effect  induced  by  the  impi-egnated  water,  to  wit,  the 
removal  of  the  impurity  of  the  soul?  But  there  are  few  if  any 
cases  stronger  than  this  as  a  warrant  for  confounding  (iaTzrC^u} 
with  water  covering. 

II,  760 :  "  This  he  saj's,  because  we  go  down  (xaTajSamj/iev)  into 
the  water  (e:?  to  udwp)  full  of  sins  and  impurity,  and  come  up 
(dvai3aivo!J.ev)  bearing  fruit,  having  spiritually  the  fear  and  hope 
toward  Jesus." 

Here  xarafjaivaj  no  more  fills  the  place  of  iSan-iZw  than  does  d>a- 
fiaivtu,  which  the  Baptist  Quarterly  acknowledges  it  cannot  do. 
The  representative  of  this  unexpressed  word  is  "the  bearing 
fruit"  as  the  effect  of  the  impregnated  water  on  the  soul. 

Cyril,  444  :  "  For  as  Jesus  bearing  the  sins  of  the  whole  world 
died,  that  having  slain  sin  he  might  raise  thee  in  righteousness ; 
so,  also,  thou  going  down  (xara/Sd?)  into  the  water  (ei'c  to  udwp) 
and  after  a  manner  buried  (ra^si?)  in  the  waters,  as  he  in  the  rock 
(iv  T^  Tzirpa)  might  arise  again  walking  in  newness  of  life." 

Here  again,  y-arafidt;  no  more  represents  [ianri'^uj  than  does 
racpslq;  and  rafsi?  "after  a  manner  in  the  waters"  no  more  rejDre- 
sents  fio.TTi'lo}  than  does  the  body  of  the  crucified  Redeemer  truly 
Taftiq  iv  rfj  -hpa.  Who  is  bold  enough  to  reject  the  Bible  baptism 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  on  the  Cross  and  substitute  for  it  his  burial 
in  the  rock'?  The  baptism  in  this  passage  is  no  katabainism  in 
water,  but  the  effect  claimed  for  the  impregnated  water  as  shown 
in  "walking  in  newness  of  life." 

These  passages  are  sufficient  to  show  the  gulf  which  separates 
the  function  of  the  water-covering  y.aTa[iaivu>  from  the  function  of 
the  soul-cleansing  l^anrH^u). 

KaXunru)^  y.dXuiptq.  DiONYSius  Areopagit^,  404  :  "  The  sacred 
symbols  ((Tu;j.l3oXa)  have  great  fitness.  .  .  .  As  the  bod}'^  is  covered 
(xakuTZTopevov)  in  the   earth,  the   complete   covering  {xdXu(/n^)  by 


588  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

water  ma}'  suitably  be  received  as  a  likeness  of  death  and  burial. 
This  symbol  teaching  {auiJ.i3oXurj  di8aa/.aXia)  initiates  the  sacredly 
baptized  {fiaTZTL%6iJ.evuv)  by  the  three  coverings  {y-araduaea'.)  in  the 
water  into  the  imitation  of  the  divine  death  and  three  days'  and 
nights'  burial  (raf /]?)  of  Jesus  the  giver  of  life." 

Is  xaluKTU)  to  be  added  to  the  list  of  words  equivalents  of  [iaiz- 
rOto)  ?  Will  any  one  say  that  the  latter  word  in  its  Patristic  (or 
Classic)  use  can  be  substituted  for  the  former  word,  as  here  used, 
reading — "As  the  body  is  baptized  in  the  earth  "?  Is  there  any 
such  phrase  in  Christian  Greek  writers,  or  in  heathen  Greek 
writers,  or  is  it  possible  to  form  such  in  accordance  with  Greek 
usage  ?  If  (iaTZTi%u)  cannot  be  applied  to  a  "  covering  in  the  earth," 
it  may  not,  here,  be  applied  to  a  y.a\oii>>.c,  in  the  water. 

Kah'jTZ-ut^  -/.dXuil'tq^  xaraduoj^  xarddnai^^  Odizrw^  raipij^  are  substantial 
equivalents,  but  neither  of  them  has  any  equivalence  with  the 
Patristic  l^anu^^w,  (JdnzKrim. 

Karadmu).  Gregory  Thaum.,  1185:  "It  is  necessary  that  I 
should,  now,  be  baptized  with  this  baptism  and  hereafter  bestow 
upon  men  the  baptism  of  the  coequal  Trinity.  .  .  .  Cover  (zara- 
duffdv)  me  with  the  waters  of  the  Jordan  as  she  who  bare  me 
wrapped  me  in  swaddling  clothes.  Give  me  the  baptism  (to  /id::- 
riff/ia)  as  the  Virgin  gave  me  milk.  Baptize  me  who  am  about  to 
baptize  them  that  believe  through  water  and  Spirit  and  fire  (8i 
udaro^  y.ai  llvei)iJ.o.roq  /.ai  izupoq)  by  the  water  able  (udart  dwaixivw)  tO 
wash  awa}'  the  filth  of  sins,  by  the  Spirit  able  (IJveu/iurc  duva;j.ivu)) 
to  make  the  earthly  spiritual,  by  fire  (-opt)  fit  b}'  nature  to  burn 
up  the  thorns  of  sin." 

haraduffdv  covering  in  the  waters  of  Jordan  may  respond  to 
wrapping  in  swaddling  bands ;  will  the  Patristic  jSanztZw  do  so  ? 
Could  Gregory' say — "Give  me  the  xurdduffcv  as  the  Virgin  gave 
me  milk?"  Is  there  such  a  phrase  to  be  found  anywhere  as  "a 
xardduffiq  of  the  COequal  Trinity  ?"  or,  "  a  xarddufft^  d]  udaToq  xal  Iheu- 
jlaTiiq  xai  Tzupo<;V^  That  this  word  is  not  the  equivalent  of /5«;rr£'^a>, 
and  does  not  subserve  the  same  oflfice  in  the  administration  of 
baptism,  is  further  shown  by  the  adjunct  duvanivw  with  "water," 
and  with  "Spirit"  when  a  baptism  is  spoken  of  "Power"  in 
water  has  nothing  to  do  with  a  xarddotriq ;  but  it  is  the  all-essential 
thing  on  which  a  Patristic  baptism  is  suspended. 

DiDYMUS  Alex.,  720  :  "  Tliey  who  come  into  orthodoxy,  al- 
though they  may  have  been  baptized,  are  baptized,  I  do  not  say 
rebaptized  (dval^anTH^uvrai)  because  they  have  not  the  true  bap- 


BAPTISM  NOT  A  COVERING.  589 

tism.  The  Eniiomians  because  they  practice  but  one  covering 
(^xaTadoffiv)^  professing  only  to  baptize  (jSaTzrc'^sffdat)  into  the  death 
of  the  Lord ;  the  Phrj'^gians,  because  they  did  not  baptize  into 
(sk)  the  three  holy  hypostases,  but  believed  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  the  same."  (Basil  says  (Epist.  188), 
they  baptized  into  the  Father,  and  Son,  and  Montanus,  or  Pris- 
cilla.) 

Observe  the  marked  discrimination,  here  and  always,  in  the 
usage  of  xaradvu)  and  ^aizriZw,  together  with  their  derivatives. 
The  Eunomian  water  covering  is  expressed  by  -/.aradTxTtq^  but  when 
"the  death  of  the  Lord"  is  introduced,  this  word  is  promptlj'- 
rejected  and  bapl/ism  is  substituted.  The  same  is  true  as  to  the 
Phrygians.  Whether  they  used  one  xaradoffi<;  or  three,  in  using 
the  water,  there  was  neither  one  nor  three  "  into  the  hypostases," 
but  this  word  is  discarded  and  /SarrtTw  is  used.  And  when  Basil 
speaks  of  their  sentiments  and  practice,  he  does  not  speak  of  a 
xarddumq  "  into  the  Father,  and  Son,  and  Montanus,  or  Priscilla," 
but  a  baptiam.     This  discrimination  is  uniform. 

Athanasius  IV,  753:  "As  the  Lord's  bod}^  buried  in  the 
earth  begat  salvation  for  the  world,  so,  also,  our  body  buried  in 
the  baptism  begat  righteousness  for  us.  The  likeness  is  thus  : 
As  Christ  died  and  on  the  third  day  arose,  so,  also,  we  dying  in 
the  baptism  arise.  For  the  thrice  covering  (xaraduaat)  and  uncov- 
ering (dvaduaac)  the  child  in  the  pool  signifies  the  death  and  third 
day  resurrection  of  Christ." 

The  phrase  ra^ev  iv  riL  jiaTtTia/j-arc  affords  very  facile  ground  for 
serious  error  through  hasty  interpretation.  It  may,  very  plausi- 
bly, be  said,  fiaTtzt/T/iarc  here  represents  xaraSTxriq^  covering  simpl}^ 
But  there  are  two  objections  to  this :  1.  The  whole  current  of 
usage  is  against  such  a  meaning ;  2.  The  true  representative  of 
"covering  "  is  ra^ei/,  which  we  have  already  seen  to  be  used  as  the 
equivalent  of  xaTdduai<;.  Unless  these  objections  can  be  removed 
they  are  conclusive  against  this  interpretation.  A  better  one, 
harmonious  with  usage,  may  be  found  in  either  of  two  exposi- 
tions :  1.  BdnTKTim  is  here  used  to  denote  the  baptizing  water 
characteristically,  to  wit,  as  water  having  the  jjower  (not  to  cover 
but)  to  baptize  =  to  remit  sin  and  to  regenerate.  This  use  of 
the  word  is  shown  (1)  by  its  application  to  the  water  and  the 
blood  issuing  from  the  wounded  side  of  Christ,  which  (the  blood, 
as  well  as  the  water)  were  called  baptisms — "two  baptisms." 
The  reason  for  such  appellation  is  found,  not  in  their  power  to 


590  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

cover,  for  the  blood  of  Christ  cannot  cover  his  people,  nor  can 
the  blood  of  martyrdom  cover  the  mart^'r,  but  in  their  power  to 
baptize  =  to  remit  sin,  which  is  true  in  fact  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  was  thought  (erroneously)  to  be  true  of  the  blood  of 
martyrs;  (2.)  By  its  application  to  all  water  having  this  same 
power,  because  "  to)  }5:a»  [ianriaimn  "  it  secured  the  power  to  bap- 
tize. This  designation  of  a  liquid  by  a  term  denoting  a  qualitj'^ 
imparted  to  it  and  which  in  turn  it  is  capable  of  imparting  is  il- 
lustrated in  2  Maccabees  1  :  36,  where  Nehemiah  calls  a  liquid 
which  has  secured  the  power  of  purifying,  Napthar  (y-oMafnuiioq) 
purification.  In  like  manner  we  call  water  to  which  a  coloring 
quality  has  been  imparted  a  dye.,  because  it  has  secured  the  power 
of  dyeing.  This  truth  must  be  recognized  or  Patristic  writings 
cannot  be  justly  interpreted.  A  covering  in  dye  water  is  one 
thing  ;  a  covering  in  simple  water  is  another  thing.  And  no  one 
has  a  right  to  make  them  one  thing  by  abstracting  the  differen- 
tiating dj'eing  qualit3\  It  is  utter  extinction  to  Patristic  baptism 
to  take  awa}'^  from  its  water  its  impregnating  quality. 

When  Athanasius  speaks  of  a  burial  iv  tu>  [iaTzriaimrt  there  is 
no  authority  for  converting  his  statement  into  a  ■/.aTdSixn'^  within 
a  simple  fluid.  That  he  does  not  contemplate  a  simple  covering 
he  shows  very  clearly  by  the  statement  of  the  effect  of  the  bap- 
tizing water  in  "  begetting  righteousness."  2.  JM-rctr/m  may  not 
be  used  here  specifically,  but  comprehensively  (like  <P<oTC(Tfj.a) 
which  means  baptism  =  the  rite,  just  as  does,  very  frequently, 
/SdnTt/T/xa  itself.  In  such  case  the  preposition  (h)  in  the  phrase 
under  consideration  is  not  local,  within  a  space,  but  temporal, 
during  a  time,  i.e.,  the  burial  takes  pla(!e  within  tlie  rite,  during 
the  administration  of  the  rite.  Either  of  these  interpretations 
finds  adequate  justification  and  is  harmonious  with  the  usage  of 
terms.  That  y.ara(V)(nq  is  to  be  found  in  rafkv  and  not  in  [ia-'iaiiari, 
or  is  to  be  supplied  by  ellipsis,  is  evident  from  the  subsequent 
introduction  of  /.aTaiVjaai.^  avadutrat  in  the  triple  covering  of  the 
child  to  denote  burial  and  resurrection,  which  fidTZTcrr/xa  never 
does  nor  can  represent. 

Basil  IV,  884 :  "  But  I  do  not  know  why  it  should  have  oc- 
curred to  you  to  inquire  concerning  the  uncovering  (avaiV'ifrsw^)  in 
the  baptism,  since  you  have  received  the  covering  {xarddufftv)  as  a 
type  exemplifying  tlie  tliree  days.  For  it  is  impossible  to  be 
baptized  thrice  witliout  being  uncovered  [dvaduvra)  as  often." 

The  use  of  the  phrase  iv  tu>  iiuTzri^naTi  in  connection   with  dva- 


BAPTISM    NOT    A    COVERING.  591 

dzuffswq  is  confirmatory  of  the  interpretation  wliicli  makes  it  com- 
prehensive of  the  whole  rite,  since  if  iSaTzzifiimn  be  understood  to 
mean  covejnng,  tlie  phrase  "  uncovering  in  the  covering  "  becomes 
impossible  and  absurd.  We  have,  also,  again  the  distinct  state- 
ment that  /.arddixTf:  is  not  the  baptism,  but  a  type  of  a  wholly 
different  thing — the  three  days'  burial.  The  thrice  baptizing  will, 
again,  come  up  for  consideration. 

Clement  I,  Eom.  Pont.,  800 :  "  Baptism  is  given  into  the  death 
of  Jesus.  The  water  is  instead  of  a  sepulchre.  The  covering 
(xardiiijtTiq)  is  the  dying  with  Jesus.  The  uncovering  {avddurrn;)  is 
the  rising  with  Jesus." 

Here  is  an  express  explanation  of  xaTddutrcq  and  dvd(Ju<Tc<;.  It  is 
anything  but  the  Patristic  [idTTTiaiia. 

The  notions  and  utterance  of  these  writers  respecting  baptism 
are  mixed  and  incongruous  as  might  be  anticipated  in  such  wide 
departures  from  Scripture  teaching.  We  are  told  that  baptism 
should  be  "into  the  death  of  Christ."  This  is  scriptural;  but  it 
is  a  purely  ideal  baptism  and  does  not  admit  of  any  physical 
representation.  And  yet  the  manner  of  using  water  was  con- 
structed, not  on  the  death,  that  was  impossible,  but  on  the 
burial  of  Christ,  which  does  not  by  one  word  of  Scripture  enter 
into  his  baptism  which  takes  place  upon  the  Cross,  or  with  our 
relation  to  that  baptism.  Again,  we  are  told  that  it.  is  heresy  to 
baptize  into  the  name  or  death  of  Christ,  and  the  baptism  should 
be  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  H0I3'  Ghost.  But  in 
that  case  what  becomes  of  the  xazdduffc:;  burial  and  the  di'ddutrc; 
resurrection  ?  Are  there  any  such  things  in  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost?  And  what  becomes  of  the  triple  covering  and  un- 
covering— the  t3'pified  three  nights  and  three  days  ?  Converted 
into  the  three  Persons  of  the  Trinit}^  are  they?  But  does  this 
shifting  from  the  duplex-trine-type  of  days  and  nights  to  the 
single  trine  Persons  of  the  Deity  exhibit  divine  wisdom  and  con- 
gruity,  or  human  foil}'  and  inconsistency?  AVhatever  ma>'  have 
been  the  errors  adopted  by  the  Patrists  they  did  not  adopt  the 
error  of  confounding  y-arddutnc;  and  ftdrrrKTfj.a. 

DiONYSius  Areop.  {prior)  896:  "The  chief  priest  baptizes  him 
thrice,  invoking  the  trine  Hj'postasis  of  the  blessed  Deity,  at  the 
three  coverings  [xaradutretrt)  and  uncoverings  (dvatJufrent)  of  the 
candidate." 

421 :  "  And  since  Jesus  remained  during  three  days  and  nights 
in  the  heart  of  the  earth,  the  three  nights  are  represented  by  the 


592  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

three  coverings  (xarad'jff^u)'/)  and  the  three  days  by  the  three  un- 
COVeringS  (ava(5f;(r£wv)." 

No  one  acquainted  with  the  Patristic  jSanrceT/ia  can  confound 
these  type  burial-resurrection  coverings  and  uncoverings  with  it. 

President  Beecher  gives  the  following  quotations :  Afioaiol. 
ConstituL  L.  "Three  baptisms  of  one  initiation."  Photius: 
"  The  three  coverings  and  uncoverings  of  the  baptism  signify 
death  and  resurrection."  Theophylact :  "As  baptism  through 
the  covering  typifies  death,  so  through  the  uncovering  it  t3'pifies 
the  resurrection.  .  .  .  He  gave  one  baptism  with  three  coverings 
of  the  body  to  his  disciples." 

Zonaras  is  quoted  as  expounding  the  Tpia  ^a-Tirrimxa  as  the  rpzi': 
y.araduasiq.  President  Beecher  inclines  to  this  view,  but  does  not 
think  it  necessar}'.  Balsamon,  also,  is  quoted  as  suggesting,  not 
without  misgiving,  the  same  interpretation,  thus :  "  The  ISanrifffiaTa 
here  seem  to  me  instead  of  xa-nSoffewv.''^  The  doubt  implied  in 
this  language  is  well  justified.  The  rpta  ftaTTrctr/xara  can  only  be 
referred  to  the  several  baptisms  into  the  three  Persons  of  the 
Godhead.  It  is  this  explanation  only  which  can  constitute  the 
"^v  /5«'7rrt<7//a  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Godhead  in  harmony  with  the 
"  r^ot'tt /3a7rrt(T/j.ara "  into  (severally)  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost.  This  interpretation  is  required  by  the  uniform  usage 
of  [iaitriXuj  and  (idnTt.<TiJ.a.  Three  phj'sical  coverings  can  in  no  sense 
constitute  one  physical  covering  which  they  must  be  affirmed  to 
do  if  "  one  baptism  "  be  one  covering ;  but  "  three  coverings  " 
may  readily  enter  into  something  wholly  diverse,  to  wit,  "one 
baptism."  There  is  no  difficulty  in  saying  "three  baptisms"  into 
the  several  Persons  ("in  Personas")  of  the  Deity  make  "one  bap- 
tism "  into  the  Name  common  to  each  Person  of  the  DeitJ^ 

Mergo — Mergito. 

Tertulltan  T,  1206:  "Going  out  of  the  washing  we  are 
anointed.  .  .  .  The  ointment  flows  on  us  ph3'sically,  but  it  profits 
spiritually ;  as  also  the  act  of  baptism  itself  is  physical,  because 
we  are  covered  (mergimur)  in  water,  but  the  effect  is  spiritual, 
because  we  arc  free  from  sins." 

Here  the  physical  water-covering  is  explicitly  distinguished 
from  the  effect  of  the  water  as  impregnated  with  a  spiritual 
8uva;j.i<;^  the  operation  of  which  reaching  to  the  soul  constitutes 
the  baptism,  to  wit,  the  remission  of  sins.     The  physical  act  by 


MERGO — MERQITO.  593 

which  the  body  is  covered  in  water,  or  otherwise  made  subject  to 
the  influence  of  the  water,  no  more  constitutes  the  baptism,  than 
does  the  pouring  or  the  flowing  of  the  ointment  on  the  body  con- 
stitute the  spiritual  anointing  (endowment)  of  the  soul  with  the 
graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Neither  has  the  covering  in  water 
anything  essential  to  do  with  the  baptism — this  is  simply  "  e*' 
orrfiV?e," — as  is  demonstrated  by  the  "  almost  daily  "  baptism  by 
pouring  or  sprinkling  the  water  upon  the  sick.  This  was  no  mere 
quasi  baptism.  It  was  true,  perfect,  "  most  glorious  "  baptism^ 
while  it  was  no  water-covering. 

1209:  "After  the  waters  of  the  Deluge  by  which  old  sin  was 
purged  away — after  the  Baptism,  as  I  might  say,  of  the  world — 
the  Dove  returning  with  the  olive-branch  announced  peafce." 

Here  was  a  water-covering  beyond  the  craving  of  any  friend  to 
dipping;  but  as  a  water-covering  it  was  no  Patristic  baptism 
(classical  it  was  because  it  was  no  dipping),  but  as  taking  away 
sin  it  was  a  baptism.  The  covering  form  of  the  deluge  is  of  no 
account ;  it  is  the  power  of  the  deluge  waters,  as  an  agenc}',  to 
purge  the  earth  from  sin  which  constitutes  the  "baptism  of  the 
world." 

II,  280  :  ''  He  covers  (mergif)  the  body  destitute  of  salvation 
into  this  sacrament  of  salvation." 

The  simple  covering  of  the  body  in  this  saving  water  is  no 
more  the  baptism  (=  salvation),  than  is  the  simple  covering  of  a 
fleece  in  a  purple  dye,  the  purple  which  the  dye  effects  in  the 
fleece.  Mergo  and  fian-i^w  are  never  interchanged  within  the  re- 
ligious sphere  by  these  vvriters.  Mergo  may  be  used  in  the  pro- 
cess by  which  a  dye  may  be  effected,  but  mergo  never  means  to 
DYE ;  and  mergo  may  be  used  in  the  process  by  which  Patristic 
baptism  was  effected,  but  mergo  never  means  Patristic  baptism. 

Jerome  I,  661:  "Micah  1 :  19  speaks  of  the  grace  of  baptism — 
'He  will  cast  all  our  sins  into  the  depth  of  the  sea.'  How  are  all 
sins  covered  (raerguntur)  in  the  washing  if  one  wife  swims  upon 
the  surface  ?" 

Jerome  is  speaking  to  the  question — "  Unius  uxoris  virum." 
Sins  covered  by  God  in  the  depths  of  the  sea  never  emerge.  The 
grace  of  baptism  removes  all  sin  from  the  sinner,  and  leaves  them 
in  the  bottom  of  the  pool  forever  classically  baptized,  while  the 
sinner  through  the  remission  of  sins  lives  a  patristically  baptized 
man.     Water-covering  is  not  Patristic  baptism. 

38 


594  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

XI,  T4f) :  "  When  we  pass  over  the  sea  of  baptism  then  the  devil 
and  his  army  are  drowned  (demergitur)  for  us  as  was  Pharaoh." 

This  is  another  case  of  water-covering  classical  baptism.  The 
devil  and  his  army  may  be  drowned  by  being  covered  in  the  sea 
of  baptism,  but  the  sinner  fleeing  from  him  is  not  drowned  but 
baptized — washed  from  sin  and  regenerated  into  a  divine  life. 
The  baptism  of  the  devil  and  his  army  is  a  simple  water-covering; 
the  baptism  of  Jerome  and  his  associates  is  the  remission  of  sins. 

VII,  495:  "  '  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism.^  It  is  said  one 
faith,  because  we  believe  similarly  upon  the  Father,  and  upon 
the  Son,  and  upon  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  one  baptism,  for  in  the 
same  manner  we  are  baptized  into  the  Father,  and  into  the  Son, 
and  into  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  we  are  thrice  covered  (ter  mer- 
gimur)  that  one  sacrament  of  the  Trinity  may  appear.  And  we 
are  not  baptized  into  the  names  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  but  into  one  name,  which  expresses  the  Deity. 
...  It  may,  also,  be  called  one  6ap<«"s?n,  because  although  we  may 
be  thrice  baptized  on  account  of  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  still 
it  must  be  considered  one  baptism.  That,  also,  is  one  baptism 
which  is  by  water,  by  Spirit,  and  by  fire.'- 

Jerome  like  all  others  makes  a  broad  discrimination  in  the  use 
of  baptizo  and  mergo.  The  latter  is  limited  to  the  physical  ele- 
ment, and  the  former  is  as  strictly  limited  to  an  ideal  element — 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  or  of  suchlike  character.  Besides, 
if  these  words  were  of  like  meaning  and  application,  wh}^  introduce 
the  foreign  word  into  the  Latin  language  and  use  it  side  by  side 
with  one  of  native  origin  ?  We,  like  the  Latins,  have  adopted 
the  Greek  word  on  the  declared  ground  that  there  is  no  word  in 
the  Englisli  language  of  the  same  meaning,  with  the  same  devel- 
opment, and  the  same  peculiar  application  both  as  to  form  and 
subject.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Latin  ;  and  when  the  theory 
borrows  the  Latin  im-mergo  (immerse)  for  its  Bible  as  the  square 
equivalent  of  [ianTiX,oj,  they  do  what  Jerome  would  not  do  for  his 
Bible.  But  perhaps  the  friends  of  the  theory  understand  Latin 
as  well  as  Greek  better  than  the  translator  of  the  Vulgate.  Yet 
for  all  this  there  has  not  been  a  Baptist  book  ever  framed  on  the 
idea,  that  "  to  translate  [ianriXw  into  English  is  the  easiest  thing 
in  the  world,"  for  '•  baptism  is  dipping,  and  dipping  is  baptism," 
and  "  it  means  di[)  and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek  litera- 
ture," but  what  superabundantly  disproved  itself. 

Jerome  satisfactorily  explains  tlie  three  baptisms,  into  the  three 


USE    OF    [ia-ziloj   NOT    PHYSICAL.  695 

several  persons,  Father,  Sou,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as  one  baptism 
into  one  Name,  comprehending  the  Three-One.  He  does  not 
undertake  the  task  of  explaining  that  three  water-coverings  may 
be  one  water-covering.  The  interpretation  of  Eph.  4:5,  "one 
baptism,"  as  one  dipping  into  water  (as  against  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling the  water),  never  entered  into  the  mind  of  any  Patrist  any 
more  than  of  Jerome. 

II,  1 G4 :  "  There  are  many  other  things  observed  in  the  Churches 
through  tradition  which  have  assumed  the  authorit}^  of  written 
law,  such  as  to  cover  (mergitare)  the  head  tliree  times  in  the 
washing." 

This  declaration  of  Jerome,  that  there  is  no  scriptural  warrant 
for  covering  the  liead  thrice  in  water,  might  as  truly  be  extended 
to  covering  it  once. 

All  Latin  and  Greek  terms  for  covering  in  water  in  the  rite  are 
separate  in  use  and  meaning  from  (ianri'^ui. 

Evidence  against  the  physical  use  of  iSanri'^a)  in  greater  force. 

That  ^aTtriXto  and  i3dnTt(Tim^  hy  long  and  frequent  use  in  organic 
phrases  expressive  of  purification,  have  acquired  the  power  in 
absolute  use  to  expi-ess  directly  the  meanings  to  purify.,  purifica- 
tion in  relation  to  spiritual  things,  is  authoritatively  established 
by  the  following  quotations  : 

Oriqen  III,  704  :  "  Physicians  say,  that  to  cure  certain  dis- 
eases not  only  is  the  cutting  by  a  knife  necessary,  but  burning, 
also.  Cancers  require  to  cut  with  the  knife  and  to  burn  the 
roots  with  fire.  Our  sin  is  a  cancer  for  which  neither  cutting  nor 
burning,  alone,  is  sufficient ;  both  are  needed.  .  .  .  Therefore  the 
Saviour  uses  both  sword  and  fire  {et  baplizat  qiise  non  potuerunt 
Spiritus  Sancti  purificatione  purgari).  and  baptizes  those  sins 
which  could  not  be  purged  by  the  purification  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Tlie  verb  is  here  used  absolutely,  and  the  construction  with  sins 
(quae)  as  its  object  constitutes  an  impassable  gulf  over  which  no 
friend  of  dipping  can  ever  pass.  Wlioever  may  undertake  the 
feat  of  dipping  sins  into  "  sword  and  fire  "  will  have  need  to  bear 
in  mind  the  caution  addressed  to  those  who  meddle  with  edged 
tools  and  burning  coals.  The  only  possible  meaning  which  can 
be  assigned  to  "baptizat"  is  purifies,  washes,  cleanses.  "The 
Say'ionr  purifies  those  sins  which  (or  those  things  polluted  by  sin 
which)  could  not  be  purified  by  the  puiHfication  of  the  Holy 


696  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Spirit."  When  the  verb  appears  in  an  organic  phrase  with  an 
ideal  element  possessed  of  a  purifying  power,  as  in  baptized  into 
repentance,  into  remission  of  sins,  into  Christ,  etc.,  it  has  not  in 
itself  the  idea  of  purification,  but  it  develops  this  idea  by  bringing 
its  ol)ject  under  the  controlling  influence  of  the  associate  member 
of  the  phrase.  This  is  the  aspect  in  which  the  verb  is  introduced 
to  our  attention  in  the  New  Testament,  These  phrases  present  a 
combination  absolutely  novel.  Words  never  before  presented 
such  forms,  or  such  verbal  conceptions,  as  "  baptize  into  repent- 
ance, he  baptized  into  the  remission  of  sins,  baptized  into 
Christ,  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ,"  baptizing  into  the 
Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
They  are  well  calculated  to  arrest  attention  by  their  remarkable 
construction,  their  profound  meaning,  and  the  priceless  worth  of 
their  sentiment.  We  might  well  conclude,  that  it  was  something 
of  no  ordinary  character  which  thus  induced  the  Holj^  Spirit  to 
originate  new  forms  of  expression  (almost  constraining  their 
preservation  in  all  languages  and  their  perpetuation  through  all 
ages  in  the  same  identical  terms),  taxing  the  power  of  language 
to  the  uttermost  in  order  to  its  enunciation.  This  was  true.  The 
exigency  arose  in  the  wondrous  death  and  purif^ang  power  of  the 
atoning  blood  of  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  to  cleanse  a  guilty  race 
and  restore  redeemed  souls  to  subjection  and  afiiliation  to  the 
living  God,  Father,  Son,  and  Hoi}'  Ghost.  As  the  symbol  and 
exponent  of  this  marvellous  work  the  wisdom  of  God  has  chosen 
above  all  other  words,  the  word  HAIITIZQ.  This  word  in  its  com- 
binations exhausts,  so  far  as  human  imagination  can  receive  it, 
the  depths  of  repentance,  of  remission  of  sin,  of  the  bleeding 
wounds  of  the  Crucified,  of  the  duties  of  creatures,  and  of  the 
sovereign  rights  of  tlie  fully  revealed  Jehovah.  This  word  will 
endure  and  be  diflfused  in  all  languages  to  bear  witness  to  the 
profoundest  spiritual  purification  as  essential  to  union  and 
communion  with  the  God  of  heaven  and  eartli. 

Tertullian  III,  1082:  A  letter  from  Cyprian  to  Jovian  con- 
tains the  following  passage:  "  It  is  necessary  that  the  water  be 
first  purified  (xaOapO^E/rOa'.)  and  sanctified  {ay'.dX^i^Oat)  by  the  priest, 
that  it  may  be  able  by  its  ovvn  baptism  (rioyrjdfj  r<t»  ](liu)  iSazTiir/mri) 
to  purge  (d7:offfio!^m)  the  sins  of  the  baptized  {iSaizriXoiilvou)  man." 

It  is  impossible  for  evidence  to  be  more  complete  in  proof  of 
the  usage  of  fidTZTtff/ia  to  express  dircctl}^  purification.  Does  the 
priest  purify  and  sanctify  the  water  by  dipping  it  into  itself  or 


EQUIVALENTS.  597 

into  anj'thing  else  ?  Is  it  possible  to  dip  a  pool  of  water  into 
sprinkled  oil  and  invocation  any  more  than  to  dip  the  Homeric 
lake  into  frog's  blood  ?  Does  not  -/.adapiZu)  mean  purify  ?  Does 
not  dytd'l.co  mean  sanctify  ?  Is  not  iSaTtriaiJ.aTi  the  child  of  this 
parentage  ?  Has  the  law,  "  Like  begets  like,"  been  abrogated, 
so  that  purification  and  sanctification  bring  forth  that  strangeling 
— a  dipping'?  But  the  force  of  the  evidence  cannot  be  increased 
by  multiplying  words.  I  only  add,  that  expressions  equivalent 
with  that  of  this  passage  abound.  They  do  not,  however,  usually 
employ  the  terms  baptize,  baptism,  but  the  equivalents  purify, 
purification,  cleanse,  cleansing.  And  hereby,  namely,  by  the  in- 
terchange of  jSaTtnZoj  with  terms  expressive  of  purification  as 
equivalents,  we  have  the  argument  from  the  refusal  to  interchange 
^anriXu)  with  terms  expressive  of  physical  covering  as  equivalents, 
driven  home  and  fastened  as  a  nail  in  a  sure  place.  Tiiere  is  no 
charactei'istic  of  Patristic  writings  more  certain  or  more  abound- 
ing than  the  equivalent  interchange  of  /SaTrrt'^w  and  words  expres- 
sive of  purification,  such  as  ■/.aOapiZ.u)^  Xoou)^  mundo,  lavo,  and  such 
like.  It  must  be  observed,  however,  that  such  interchange  is  not 
with  j3anT(!^u)  in  organic  phrases  such  as  appear  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  in  Patristic  writings,  namely,  [ianri'^.  st'c  ixtrdviuav^  £c<; 
a^eatv,  ei<;  Xpcaro'.'^  etc.,  but  in  its  absolute  use  as  having  absorbed 
within  itself  and  expressing  by  itself  the  import  of  the  entire 
phrase.  Such  development  is  in  the  most  absolute  harmony  with 
the  laws  of  language,  and  the  fact  of  such  usage  as  that  indicated 
establishing  the  development  as  a  historical  fact,  is  one  of  math- 
ematical certainty.  Some  illustrative  quotations  will  now  be  pre- 
sented. 

KaOapc^u)^  Xobui,  mundo,  lavo,  etc.  =  BanTiZm. 

Clemens  Rom.  I  {Const.  Apost.),  1081 :  "  0  thou,  who  hast  said 
through  the  holy  prophets,  '  Wash  (aouw)  you,  make  you  clean,' 
and  hast  established  through  Christ  spiritual  regeneration,  look 
now  upon  these  baptized  (/?a7rrCw)  ones  and  bless  them.  Auuuj  = 
^aizTiZui. 

■  1124  :  "0  thou  who  givest  water  for  drinking  and  for  purifica- 
tion (xdOapffiv)  and  oil  to  gladden  the  face,  now,  through  Christ, 
sanctify  this  water  and  oil,  and  grant  effectual  power  to  heal,  to 
expel  diseases,  and  to  put  to  flight  daemons."    Kadap^tv  =  Bdnrcfrpa. 

1460:  "1  am  fully  persuaded  that  the  holy  baptism  (l^dnrcffpa) 


698  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

of  Christ  is  spiritual  purification  {xdOaptrtv)  and  regeneration  both 
of  soul  and  body."     KdOap(nv  =  iiaTzrttTim. 

DiONYSius  AREOPAGiTiE,  484:  "Whence"  (because  Christ  = 
anointed,  sanctifies)  "  as  T  think,  ointment  is  sprinkled  upon  the 
purifying  baptistery  (xaOapruo)  j3a7zrc<TTrjpcw)  in  the  form  of  a  cross, 
showing  that  Jesus  by  his  death  through  the  cross  delivered  those 
baptized  (iSaTzzi^ofxeyotq)  into  his  death,  from  death."  The  conjoint 
xaOaprr/.u)  Baiz-ctTz-rjpiw  shows  the  intimate  conjunction  of  -/.aOapi^co 
and  jSaTTTt-ti). 

Justin  Martyr,  420,  500-516  :  "  We  will  relate  how,  being  re- 
newed through  Christ,  we  consecrate  ourselves  to  God.  .  .  .  Upon 
(im)  the  Name  of  the  Father  of  all  and  Lord  God,  and  of  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  are  washed 
(Xourpov  nawTjvrai)  b}'  the  water.  .  .  .  This  washing  (Xourpo'^)  is  called 
illumination,  because  those  learning  these  things  ai-e  illuminated 
as  to  their  understanding.  The  illuminated  is  washed  (^.orjsrac) 
.  .  .  Isaiah  did  not  send  you  to  the  bath  there  to  wash  away 
(dTToXoufTapJvdu-:)  murder  and  other  sins,  which  not  all  the  water 
of  the  sea  is  sufficient  to  purify  (xaOapttrm')  ]  but  this  saving  wash- 
ino-  (Xdurpov)  was  announced  to  the  repenting  no  longer  seeking 
purification  {/.aOapiXoiJ.ivouz)  by  the  blood  of  goats  and  sheep,  but  by 
and  through  the  blood  of  Christ.  .  .  .  Through  the  washing  {kou-pov) 
of  repentance  and  the  knowledge  of  God,  as  Isaiah  cries.  ...  Be 
baptized  (JUaTZTKyOrjTs)  as  to  the  soul  from  anger,  and  avarice,  and 
envy,  and  hate,  and  behold  the  bod_y  is  pure  (y.aOapdv).  .  .  .  Wash 
(kovaaaOz)  and  be  pure  (xaOapo))^  and  put  away  the  evil  from  3'^our 
souls,  as  the  Lord  commands  you  to  wash  (^hiuaaffOai)  with  this 
washing  (hiurpo'/).  For  we  have  not  received  that  worthless  bap- 
tism {[idizTiffiio)  of  cisterns,  for  it  is  of  no  value  compared  with  this 
baptism  (i3dzTt(T;m)  of  life. 

Justin  M.  continually  interchanges  Ao?3w,  xaOapiZu}  and  iSanzt^uj,  as 
also,  Xourpov^  xaOapdv,  and  ftdrrrifT/ia,  as  alike  expressive  of  the 
highest  spiritual  purification,  and  never  for  a  simple  water  cover- 
ing or  fVjr  a  physical  purification  by  simple  water,  however  used. 

Ignatius,  000:  "Jesus  Christ  was  born  and  baptized  (,3a-Tt!^uj) 
that  he  miglit  purify  {xaOapi'^ut)  the  water."  The  changed  condi- 
tion of  water  here  expressed  b}'  xaOapiXo)^  is  tlie  same  as  that  ex- 
pressed heretofore  by  fiaTtrifTn.aTt. 

Tertullian  I,  1216  :  "  Heretics  have  not  one  baptism  (baptis- 
mus)  with  us  because  they  have  not  the  same.  .  .  .  We  receive 
washing  (lavacrum)  once.  .  .  .    We  have  indeed  a  second  washing 


EQUIVALENTS.  599 

(lavacrum),  one  and  the  same,  to  wit,  of  blood,  of  which  the 
Lord  says,  '  I  have  a  baptism  (baptismo)  to  be  ])aptized  with.' . . . 
These  two  baptisms  (baptismos)  he  shed  from  the  wound  of 
his  pierced  side,  that  tliey  who  believe  in  his  blood  might  be 
washed  (lavarentur)  with  water,  and  they  who  had  been  washed 
with  water  might  drink  the  blood  of  martyrdom.  This  is  that 
baptism  (baptismus)  which  represents  the  washing  (lavacrum) 
when  not  received  and  restores  it  when  lost." 

More  absolute  evidence  for  the  interchange  and  equivalence  of 
haptiamus  and  lavacrum,  and  that  neither  is  employed  for  a 
physical  cleansing  or  covering,  could  not  be  furnished.  How  can 
a  lavacrum  sanguinis  either  physically  cleanse  or  cover?  And 
yet  this  "  lavacrum  sanguinis  "  is  one  and  the  same  (unum  et 
ipsum)  with  the  "  baptismus  aquae."  This  is  an  absurd  statement 
except  as  both  spiritually  cleanse  from  sin.  And  this  was  a  uni- 
versal faith.  It  is  no  less  absurd  to  call  the  water  and  the  blood 
flowing  from  the  wounded  side  of  Christ  "duos  baptismos,"  ex- 
cept as  the  water  of  Cyprian  "roi  '.3i(o  iSa-Kziaimrt.  "  by  its  own  bap- 
tism (purification)  secures  the  power  to  baptize  (to  purif)-).  To 
contend,  that  lavo,  lavacrum,  baptismus,  relate  to  physical  wash- 
ings, and  coverings,  is  to  fight,  with  the  eyes  shut,  against  the 
wind  when  the  battle  has  been  all  lost. 

Ill,  1198:  "They  who  have  been  baptized  {haptizati)  by  this 
baptism  of  blood  alone,  obtain  a  sound  faith  and  worthy  washing 
(lavacri),  and  to  be  baptized  in  either  way  (ulroque  modo)  by 
water  or  blood,  equally  secures  one  baptism  (baptisma)  of  salva- 
tion and  honor."  Was  this  lavacrum  of  blood  and  baptisma  of 
salvation  and  honor,  a  thing  of  physics,  crimsoning  the  body  and 
brightening  the  flesh,  or  a  common  cleansing  of  the  soul? 

Origen  II,  980:  "Christ  shed  his  blood  that  we  ma}'  go  hence 
washed  (loti)  by  our  blood.  It  is  the  baptism  (baptisma)  of  blood, 
only,  which  makes  us  more  clean  than  the  baptism  of  water.  .  .  . 
Christ  called  the  shedding  (profuswnem)  of  his  blood,  baptism 
(baptisma).  ...  If  God  should  grant  that  I  might  be  washed 
(diluerer)  by  my  own  blood,  that  I  might  receive  this  second 
baptism  (baptisma)  enduring  death  for  Christ,  I  would  go  safe 
out  of  this  world." 

Here  we  have  lavo,  diluo,  baptize,  baptisma,  interchanged  as 
equivalents  where  physical  washings  or  cleansings  are  absurdly 
impossible.     Origen,  like  Tertullian,  calls  profusio  sanguinis,  a 

BAPTISMA. 


600  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Ill,  280:  "Jesus  baptizes  Q^a-ri'^w)  hy  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
fire  .  .  .  he  baptizes  the  holy  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  him  who  sins 
again  he  washes  (h>ust)  with  fire.  .  .  .  Blessed  is  he  who  does 
not  need  that  baptism  which  is  from  fire.  .  .  .  Most  miserable  is 
he  who  needs  to  be  baptized  by  fire.'''' 

Here,  again,  kouoj  and  /Sa-rttw  are  interchanged  under  circum- 
stances which,  rationally,  exclude  physics. 

Gregory  Nazianzen  III,  462:  "  He  furnished  a  double  ])urifi- 
cation  {xaOdpawv)  for  men,  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  and  through 
our  own  blood."  The  translator  says,  "  a  double  baptism  (bap- 
tismum)."  And  Gregory  does  the  same  (960),  "  Baptism  (/?a7r- 
Tjff/jta)  is  tvvofold,  through  washing  (^Xobrpoo)  and  suffering 
{TtdOouz):' 

In  this  latter  statement  hiurpov  takes  the  place  of  the  "  eternal 
Spirit"  in  the  former.  It  cannot  take  the  place  of  water,  simple, 
because  no  Patrist  ever  believed  that  simple  water  could  effect 
the  Christian  baptisma.    And  -dOoq  takes  the  place  of  martyrdom. 

NoNNUS  Panop.  753,  156  :  "  And  why  dost  thou  baptize  (iSanrc- 
Cet?)  ?  Whence  dost  thou  purify  (xaOatpecq)  man  with  water  ?  I 
have  come  baptizing  with  water  of  the  purifying  washing.  .  .  . 
He  that  sent  me  before  to  baptize  the  bod}^  of  regenerate  men  by 
washing  (loerpol.':)  without  fire  and  without  spirit."  UaTzri'^eti;  = 
xaOaipsiq. 

Heinsius,  a  commentator  on  the  paraphrase  of  John  by 
Nonnus,  objects  to  the  substitution  of  -/.o-Oappoo  for  xaOapKriioo  in 
John  3  :  25.  He  sa^'s  -/.aOappoq  denotes  an  expiatory  victim,  while 
y.al)(Lp>Miwi  denotes  the  removal  of  uncleanness  by  washing.  Of 
which  purifications  there  were  many  kinds  in  use  among  the 
Jews.  Different  from  both  was  o  dyviapitT,  expiation.  For  this 
John  substituted  repentance.  Illam  autem  o  y.aOapiaiioq  sequebatur, 
quem  et  (ia-Knapov  dixerunt  Hellenistic,  quibus  omnia  ad  unum  fere 
nomina  antiqui  Christiani  debent — The  xaOapKriw^  (jiurifivation) 
whicli  the  Greeks  also,  called  [iaTzzmiiw  (baptism)  followed."  .  .  . 
Here  is  a  competent  witness  who  declares,  not  controversially  but 
historically,  that  Jews,  Greeks,  and  Christians,  regarded  "bap- 
tism "  (t'laTZTttrpdy)  and  "purification"  (xaOapinpuv)  as  equivalent 
terms.  Neither  Jew  nor  Gentile  ever  believed  xaOapiapoq,  to  express 
a  dipi)ing  into  water;  [id-zi(jp.a  has  just  as  little  to  do  with  dip- 
ping as  its  ineaning. 

Athanasius  III,  1366:  "'He  shall  baptize  {^oKriasC)  j^ou  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.'     This  means,  that  he  will  purify  (xuOaput)  you. 


NOT    WITH    IDEAL    ELEMENT.  601 

For  the  baptism  of  John  is  not  able  to  do  this,  but  the  baptism 
of  Christ  has  power  to  take  away  sins."  IV,  228:  "Through 
the  side  of  the  second  Adam  came  redemption  and  purification 
(kurpov  xa\  xaOdpfrlov).  For  redemption  is  through  the  blood,  and 
purification  is  through  the  water  (8ia  too  ac/jtaroq^  dcd  too  o8aToq)y 

Athanasius  here  expi-essl}'^  says,  ^a-tiazi.  means  xaOaptli.  And 
the  nature  of  this  purification,  no  less  when  water  is  used  than 
when  it  is  not  used,  no  less  when  water  is  used  as  a  covering 
than  when  the  Holy  Ghost  acts  alone,  is  a  spiritual  purification, 
and  the  covering  in  the  water  or  any#other  mode  of  using  the 
water  is  no  more  expressed  b^'  ^anzi%u)  than  it  is  expressed  by 
xaOapiXw.  The  "  redemption  and  the  purification"  coming  from 
the  side  of  the  second  Adam  are  the  "two  baptisms^'  of  Tertul- 
lian,  and  Origen,  and  Gregory. 

The  evidence  proving  that  y.aOapiX,u}^  Xobw^  mundo,  lavo,  and 
their  derivatives  are  interchanged  as  equivalents  with  i^azzi'lui  and 
its  derivatives  as  expressive  of  a  condition  of  spiritual  purifica- 
tion is  varied  in  its  nature  and  perfect  in  its  value.  And  all  the 
weight  of  this  evidence  is  confirmatory  of  the  previous  evidence 
showing  that  ^a-Kzi'^u)  is  not  interchanged  as  an  equivalent  with 
xaradwu)^  demergo,  and  other  words  constantly  and  exclusively 
used  to  express  a  physical  water  covering. 

KdOapi'^u)^  Aoya>,  not  used  with  Ideal  Element. 

An  additional  step  in  the  evidence  developing  the  nature  and 
use  of  iSanrH^co  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  while  it  may,  classically, 
be  interchanged  as  equivalent  with  xaraSuvw^  demergo  (which  zada- 
pc'Coj,  htbui  never  can)  and  while  it  may,  patristically,  be  inter- 
changed as  equivalent  with  xaOapiXco.^  lauu>  (which  -/.ara^bvu).^  de- 
mergo, never  can),  still,  neither  of  these  alien  classes  of  words, 
between  which  [inn-lXu)  thus  appears  as  a  connecting  link,  is  ever 
used  as  interchangeable  equivalents  with  it  in  its  usage  with  ideal 
elements.  Thus,  we  never  have  y.o.Ta<)6vuj,  demergo  (and  just  as 
little  -/.aOapi^u),  Xouw),  elc;  //.sravotay,  £>.<;  a(patnv,  dq  Xpttrrdv.  If  the 
idea  of  ftanri^^u)  was  exhausted  b}^  a  simple  covering,  as  is  the 
case  with  xaraSovio,  demergo,  and  if  it  is  so  freely  and  constantly 
interchanged  with  them  as  is  claimed,  then,  it  would  be  inexpli- 
cable that  such  intei'change  never  took  place  in  ideal  relations. 
That  no  such  interchange  does  take  place  is  undeniable  ;  that 
any  such  interchange,  as  is  claimed,  does  take  place,  is  denied. 


602  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

The  reason  for  this  diverse  usage  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  ^a-K-iXut 
is  not  exhausted  by  the  expression  of  mere  covering. 

The  whole  current  of  the  usage  of  this  word,  no  less  Classical 
than  Jewish  and  Christian,  shows,  that  its  affinit}-  is  not  with" 
fid-KTOj  (first)  to  dip,  but  with  jSdTzrtu  (second)  to  dye,  to  color  in 
any  way,  to  communicate  quality,  characteristic  and  abiding,  like  a 
color.  In  this  last  sense  fianrcu  has  an  exceedingly  limited  use, 
as  '■'■  i3d-T£Tut  oTzo  Tojv  favvaaiiov  ■/]  <J'u/tj  The  soul  is  imbued  (colored) 
by  the  thoughts;"  '"'-  Auauiawrj  i3s.i3aij.ij.ivw  ei<; [idOo':  Imbued  (colored) 
b}'  integrity  through  anct^  through."  This  usage,  of  the  greatest 
breadth  and  importance,  fid-roi  can  hardly  be  said  to  enter.  It 
but  plants  its  foot  upon  the  threshold,  and  introduces  its  offspring 
/5«-rc'^cy  to  the  work.  That  this  task  of  developing  and  communi- 
cating characteristic  quality  is  taken  up  by  [iar.ri%u>  where  it  is 
dropped  b\^  lidnziu  (limiting  itself  to  coloring  quality)  is  shown 
by  the  adoption  of  the  same  grammatical  forms,  the  Dative  {8ua- 
io(7uvrj)  and  the  Genitive  {unu  r&v  (fuvraffituv)  as  agencies,  and  the 
Accusative  with  e;'?  (et?  i3aOo<;)  to  denote  entrance  into  and  the 
throughness  within  which  the  quality  is  communicated.  The 
usage  of /SaTTTi'Cw  can  never  receive  just  appreciation  and  intelli- 
gent discrimination  from  that  of  words  related,  in  some  respects, 
without  this  element  derived  from  its  origin  is  borne  in  mind. 

It  is  this  character  which  qualifies  it  for  use  in  ideal  relations 
where  characteristic  quality  is  to  be  developed  and  communicated 
to  its  object.  And  it  is  the  entire  lack  of  any  power  in  xaraduvuj, 
demerge,  etc.,  etc.,  to  develop  and  communicate  quality  which 
precludes  their  use  in  such  phrases  as  err  /JLerdvinav,  eU  atfzfrtv^  eJc 
Xf)t.f7Tuv.  In  like  manner,  although  for  diverse  reason,  it  is  im- 
practicable to  use  xaOapi^u},  h)uu),  raundo,  lavo,  etc.,  etc.,  in  such 
ideal  relations.  These  words  already  express  in  themselves,  gen- 
erically,  the  idea  which  is  intended  to  be  developed  by  these 
phrases.  The  word  baptize  in  the  organic  phrases,  baptize  into/ 
repentance,  into  remission,  into  Christ,  does  not  mean  pii7-ify ; 
but  it  carries  its  object  (ideally)  "  into  repentance,"  so  as  to 
become  thoroughly  interpenetrated  with  it,  and  hence  jyiirified 
through  tlie  influence  of  godly  sorrow  for  sin  ;  so,  its  object  be- 
comes interpenetrated  with  remitted  sin,  and  hence  is  purified  ; 
and  so,  its  object  becomes  inter[)enetrated  with  all  the  virtues  of 
the  redeeming  blood  of  Christ,  and  hence  is  purijied  from  all  sin. 
Now,  while  in  any  of  these  full  phrases  baptize  can  never  mean 
"  purify,"  yet  when  by  long   and   frequent   use   these   phrases 


TINQO.  -  603 

become  abbreviated  and  represented  by  the  one  word  baptize^ 
then  the  vahie  of  the  entire  phrase  is  transferred  to  and  expressed 
by  that  word,  and  it  secures  the  meaning  to  ijurify.  And  it  is  at 
this  point,  and  onl}'^  at  this  point,  that  it  comes  into  relationship 
with  xadapi^u),  hiow,  mundo,  lavo,  purgo,  purifico,  and  a  host  of 
like  words,  in  whose  equivalent  fellowship  we  find  it  all  through 
the  Patristic  writings.  This  is  just  what  language  development 
demands.  Frequency  of  usage  and  length  had  abbreviated  the 
ideal  phrases  of  Scripture  and  conferred  their  idea  upon  a  single 
word.  But  this  Patristic  development  cannot  be  carried  back  to 
the  New  Testament.  It  may  be  used  as  proof,  and  that  most 
conclusive,  to  show  the  value  of  its  phrases,  but  the  meaning 
acquired  through  one  or  more  centuries  cannot  be  applied  to  the 
word  in  its  phrase  relations,  nor  to  its  earliest  abbreviations, 
when  it  would  rather  elliptically  suggest  the  phrase  than  justly 
claim  the  right  or  power  to  express  of  itself  what  was  yet  the 
undivided  thought  of  the  whole. 

These  principles  and  facts  indicate  the  double  usage  which  ex- 
cludes [iaKriXw  from  the  water-covering  function  of  xaradwco^  and 
includes  it  with  y.aOapi'^ui  in  expressing  the  spiritual  purification 
which  was  believed  to  be  eff'ected  by  the  impregnated  water  of 
Christian  baptism  however  it  might  be  used,  whether  by  covering, 
pouring,  sprinkling,  or  in  any  other  becoming  way. 

Tingo. 

There  is  another  word  which  appears  (especially  in  some  of  the 
Patristic  writings)  that  is  supposed  to  yield  proof,  that  ^anriZui 
means  to  dip.  I  refer  to  the  use  of  tingo.  This  word  is  not  of 
common  use  in  early  Christian  writings,  but  appears  with  fre- 
quency in  Tertullian,  and,  with  less  prominence,  in  Augustine. 
This  usage  it  will  be  proper  to  consider  in  the  present  connection. 

Tingo.,  as  used  in  connection  with  Christian  baptism,  cannot  be 
assumed  to  prove  that  [ia-riZ<a  means  to  dip,  without  assuming 
that  tingo,  as  so  used,  means  to  dip,  and  that,  in  this  meaning,  it 
squarely  represents  fianriZo).  There  are  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
both  of  these  assumptions.  But  the  first  might,  limitedly,  be 
true  and  the  last  remain  untrue. 

To  dip  is  not  the  sole  meaning  of  tingo,  nor  is  it,  according  to 
the  Lexicons,  its  leading  meaning.  Its  various  phases  of  mean- 
ing are  exhibited  in  the  related  words  of  other  languages,  as  in 


604 


PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


the  Greek  riyyia^  to  wet,  the  English  tinge,  to  color,  and  the  Ger- 
man tiinchen  to  whiten.  The  Latin  tingo  with  tlie  leading  mean- 
ings to  dip,  to  dye,  has  appropriate  modifications  of  both  these 
meanings,  as  is  shown  in  Classic  Baptism.  To  ivet  and  (o  ivash, 
are  natural  subordinate  meanings  of  dip,  when  the  act  carries  its 
object  into  pure  water ;  as  to  dye,  to  color,  to  stain,  are  natural 
outgrowths  of  a  dipping  into  coloring  liquids.  And  to  ivhitcn  (to 
take  out  stains  or  color)  is  a  no  less  legitimate  meaning  from  dip- 
ping into  a  liquid  which  has  bleaching  qualities — the  power  to 
make  of  a  white  color. 

As  tingo  secures  the  meaning  to  dye  (without  reference  to 
mode,  dropping  the  action  of  dijjping)  from  dipping  into  liquids 
having  coloring  qualities,  expressing  the  communication  of  such 
quality,  so,  it  secures  as  legitimately  the  meaning  to  imbue  by 
dipping  into  a  real  or  ideal  element  which  has  a  piality  other  than 
that  of  color  and  which  it  imparts  to  the  object  placed  within  it. 
The  specific  character  of  imbue  depending  upon  the  specific 
quality  with  which  it  may  be  related.  The  meanings  to  dye,  to 
imbue,  are  not  dependent  upon  (although  they  may  be  connected 
with)  the  act  of  dipping.  Their  dependence  is  upon  the  coloring 
or  other  qualitj'  of  the  element  by  which  the  dyeing  or  imbuing 
is  effected. 

It  is  obvious  from  these  general  statements,  that  the  simple  use 
of  tingo  in  connection  with  Christian  baptism  cannot' justify  a 
presumption  much  less  the  assumption  that  it  must  mean  to  dip. 
If  it  should  be  admitted  that  it  may  or  does  mean  to  dip,  still 
there  would  remain  that  most  vital  inquiry — Into  v)liat  does  it 
dip?  The  answer  to  this  inquiry  rules  in  the  most  absolute  man- 
ner the  worth  or  worthlessness  of  the  act  of  dipping  as  an  element 
in  the  transaction. 

If  there  be  an  element  of  peculiar  quality  with  which  tingo 
stands  related  in  Christian  baptism,  then,  in  like  relation,  when 
such  element  is  not  expressed  tingo  must  still  have  its  determin- 
ing tinge  from  that  element,  being  colored  or  imbued  with  its 
quality  whatever  that  may  be. 

1.  The  (irst  point,  then,  to  be  determined  in  considering  the 
meaning  and  value  of  tingo  as  used  by  Tertullian  is  this:  Does 
this  lingo  iiia.u(\  related  to  simple  water  or  to  some  element  (physi- 
cal or  ideal)  possessed  of  a  quality  communicable  to  the  object 
dipped  (really  or  idealh')  into  it  ? 

To  this  question  there  can  be  but  one  reply.     Tertullian  and 


TINGO.  605 

his  associates  with  one  voice  deny  that  the  water  in  their  baptism 
is  simple  water.  They  affirm  that  it  is  impregnated  with  a  divine 
influence  by  which  it  is  itself  purified  and  sanctified,  and  invested 
with  a  power  to  purify  and  sanctify  spiritually  those  who  are 
dipped  into  it,  or  who  are  otherwise  brought  under  its  influence. 
They  declare  that  a  man  who  goes  down  into  this  water  "black" 
with  sin,  comes  up  out  of  it  ''  whiter  than  snow."  In  view  of 
such  characteristic  Tertullian  says :  The  devil  dips  (tingit)  his 
disciples  into  simple  water  under  the  lying  promise  of  the  re- 
moval of  sin  (de  lavacro)  by  the  washing. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  adduce  special  quotations  to  indicate  this 
point.  Its  evidence  saturates  the  quotations  already  given,  and 
is  to  be  found  everywhere. 

Now,  suppose  that  this  tingo  represents  the  act  of  dipping  into 
this  remarkable  water,  is  it  not  a  supreme  blunder  to  make  the 
value  of  the  transaction  turn  upon  such  act  ?  Is  not  the  power 
of  the  rite  concentrated  in  the  quality  of  the  water  ?  Has  dip 
any  value  beyond  any  other  act  which  brings  its  object  under  the 
influence  of  this  water?  Does  not  tingo  in  the  dye-house  (where 
dipping  is  going  on  constantly)  lose  its  dipping  under  the  strong 
coloring  of  the  d3'e-tub  ?  Could  the  ecclesiastical  tiiigo  fare  any 
better  in  dealing  with  such  water  in  the  baptistery  ?  However 
much  he  may  have  gone  into  this  water  as  a  dipper^  he  could 
never  tarry  there  a  century  without  coming  out  a  tinctor  (not 
dyer^  but  analogously)  a  purifier.  Whether  tingo  ever  entered 
the  baptistery  to  dip  may  be  an  open  question,  but  that  it  comes 
out  to  purify  is  a  concluded  question. 

Proof  that  this  must  be  so  from  language  development  is  found 
in  the  use  of  lingo  in  the  religious  rites  of  heathenism,  as  seen  in 
Ovid,  Fast.  IV,  787-790: 

An,  quia  cunctarum  contraria  semina  rerum 
Sunt  duo,  discordes  ignis  et  unda  Dei ; 
Junxerunt  eleraenta  patres  :  aptumque  putarunt 
Ignibus  et  sparsa  tingere  corpus  aqua? 

"  Is  it  because  the  diverse  seeds  of  all  things  are  two,  the  dis- 
cordant Gods  fire  and  water,  that  our  Fathers  have  joined  those 
elements,  and  have  thought  proper  to  purify  the  body  by  fire 
and  sprinkled  water  V 

The  whole  current  of  this  passage,  as  well  as  the  forms  and 
construction  of  the  last  line,  preclude  any  other  translation  of 


606  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

"tingere"  than  to  purify.  It  is  a  pure  impossibility  either  to  dip 
or  to  dye  the  body  in  "sprinkled  water."  Beside,  "  to  purify  " 
religiously  is  but  the  simplest  and  most  legitimate  extension  of 
to  wash  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  dye  on  the  other  liand.  Tingo 
unquestionably  has  both  these  meanings.  Ovid  gives  conclusive 
proof  of  tlie  first  meaning  in  Metamorph.  11,  459:  "  Nuda  siipe?'- 
fusis  tingamuH  corpora  lymphis ;  ^Let  us  wash  our  naked  bodies 
by  water  poured  over  them."  Now  whether  religious  purification 
be  ingrafted  on  to  tingo  through  washing  or  through  dyeing  (an 
uncolored  qualit}-  making  pure  as  a  colored  quality  imparts  its 
dye)  is  of  no  consequence;  it  has  it,  and  has  it  most  legitimately. 
"These  are  they  who  have  washed  their  robes  and  made  them 
WHITE  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb."  This  statement  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  its  terms  is  a  contradiction;  justly  interpreted  is  a  truth. 
The  blood  of  the  Lamb  has  a  quality  wliich  washes  out  the  stains 
of  sin  and  dyes  tlie  soul  ivhite.  Sprinkled  water  can  neither  u;as/?. 
nor  dye,  yet  can  do  both  ;  it  can  wash  out  religious  defilement 
and  make  white.  This  washing  and  coloring  meet  together  in 
purification.  And  it  is  through  these  channels,  by  means  of 
impregnated  purifying  water,  that  Tertullian  brings  tingo  into 
relation  with  fdartTc^^tu.  If  the  interpretation  of  the  passage  from 
the  Fasti  needed  confirmation,  it  could  be  found  in  another  pas- 
sage, IV,  725 : 

Certe  ego  transilui  positas  ter  in  ordine  flammas 
Virgaque  rorantes  laurea  niisit  aquas. 

"  I  leaped  thrice  through  the  flames  placed  in  order,  and  the 
laurel  branch  scattered  the  sprinkling  waters." 

Here  the  twofold  purifying  is  seen  in  actual  use  without  any 
dipping  into  the  sprinkled  water.  This  purification  of  heathenism 
we  now  transfer  witliin,  at  least  a  heretical  Christianity,  under 
the  authority  of  Tertullian  II,  lOfJO: 

Bis  docuit  tiuffi  transdiicto  corpore  flamma. 

"  He,  Yalentinus,  taught  to  be  purifiied  twice,  the  body  being 
taken  througli  the  flame."  The  Annotator  says  Tertullian  refers 
to  some  heretics  who  purified  (baptizarent)  twice,  once  witli  water, 
once  with  fire.  Tingo  and  baplizoare  interclianged  by 'I'ertullian 
and  his  Annotator.  Tliere  is  an  adequate  basis  for  so  doing,  but 
that  basis  is  not  found  in  dip,  which  is  no  meaning  of  ba[)tizo. 
It  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  both  these  words  secure  the 


TINGO.  607 

power  to  communicate  quality  to  tlieir  object.  We  have  met 
repeatedly  with  the  statement  of  water  being  baptized,  i.e.,  a. 
certain  quality  communicated  to  it,  that  it  might  be  able  to  bap- 
tize, i.  e.,  to  communicate  the  like  quality  in  turn.  Thus  Tertul- 
lian  calls  the  water  and  the  blood  coming  from  the  wounded  side 
of  Christ  "  two  baptisms  "  (duos  baptismos),  baptized  that  they 
might  baptize.  So  Cyprian  speaks  of  water  baptized  (impregnated 
with  a  purifying  power),  tliat  "  by  its  own  baptism  "  (^purifica- 
tion) it  might  be  able  to  purif}'.  In  precisely  the  same  manner 
tingo  is  used  to  express  the  communication  of  a  quality  to  water 
that  the  water  may  exercise,  through  tingo,  that  same  qualit3% 
Thus  Ovid,  Metamorph.  IV,  388: 

Et  incerto  fontein  medicamine  tinxit. 

"And  tincted  the  fountain  with  a  dubious  drug."  It  is  impos- 
sible for  tingo  here  to  mean  either  dip  or  dye.  To  dip  "a  foun- 
tain" in  a  drug  is  an  absurdity.  To  dye  a  fountain  with  a  drug 
which  has  no  coloring  quality  is  an  impossibility.  The  fitness 
of  tingo  to  oflSciate  in  such  a  case  must  be  found  in  the  analogy 
between  the  communication  of  a  quality  in  both  cases,  extending 
the  province  of  tingo  to  the  communication  of  quality  without 
color.  An  extended  usage  in  this  direction  would  necessitate  (to 
escape  confusion  between  colored  and  uncolored  qualities)  the 
introduction  of  a  new  word.  This  was  done  b}'  the  Greeks. 
When  (itd-rw  passed  from  dipping  into  uncolored  liquids  to  dipping 
into  colored  liquids,  and  secured  the  meaning  to  dye  without 
dipping  (as  illustrated  in  ^/Sarrrerw  S"  atp-art  Xip-vr),  "  the  lake  was 
dyed  with  blood  "),  there  arose  a  necessity,  in  the  exigencies  of 
language,  to  advance  still  further,  as  shown  by  duaioawTj  fisfiajiidvov, 
"  imbued"  (certainly  neither  dipped  nor  dyed)  "  in  integrity." 
Yet  just  as  certainl}'  this  usage  comes  through  ftdnrw  to  dye.  As 
the  necessity  for  expressing  such  conceptions  must  be  of  frequent 
occurrence,  and  ^dTzno  was  already  doubly  weighted,  the  duty  was 
handed  over  to  [ianriXw.  And  thus  this  word  by  its  derivation 
has  a  hereditary  right  and  facility  to  express  the  communication 
of  quality  to  liquids,  and  through  liquids  to  persons,  which  does 
not  belong  to  other  words  with  which  it  is  related  in  other  func- 
tions, as  -/.araliwiu  for  instance.  Wine  is  baptized  by  pouring  water 
into  it.  The  condition  of  the  wine  is  changed;  the  unintoxicating 
quality  of  water  is  communicated  to  it.  The  analogy  of  this  bap- 
tism to  that  of  the  tincted  water  of  the  fountain  is  obvious.     Yet 


608  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

more  striking  is  the  analogy  with  the  wine  baptized  (changed  in 
quality)  by  a  drug,  which  in  turn  baptized  thedrinker  of  it.  This 
is  precisely  parallel  with  the  case  of  the  baptizing  water  of  Ter- 
tullian,  which  being  baptized  by  a  new  quality  communicated  to 
it,  did  in  turn,  through  its  own  baptism,  baptize  =  communicate 
its  purifying  quality  to  those  coming  under  its  influence. 

The  effort  of  Tertullian  to  extend  the  sphere  of  tingo  so  as  to 
embrace  that  of  ^anziX,uj  was  unsuccessful.  It  did  not  succeed 
with  himself.  His  writings  everywhere  show  the  necessity  which 
he  felt,  at  times,  to  introduce  the  Greek  word,  and  oftentimes  in 
common  with  others  to  employ  the  Greek  and  Latin  words  in 
contrast ;  the  first  in  a  good  sense,  the  last  in  a  bad  sense.  This 
was  especially  done  by  using  tingo  to  express  the  baptisms  of 
heretics  and  baptizo  to  express  those  of  the  Church.  The  Latin, 
like  the  English,  had  no  word  corresponding  in  character  with 
this  Greek  word,  and  the  attempt,  not  to  translate  it  by  tingo,  but 
to  mould  this  word  after  the  fashion  of  the  Greek,  did  not  succeed. 

If  Tertullian  had  believed  that  tingo  to  dip  was  the  just  repre- 
sentative of  {ia-ri^w  what  was  to  hinder  his  uniform  translation 
of  the  latter  word  by  the  former  ?  But  he  does  not  do  it.  His 
constant  use  of  tingo  shows  that  in  his  mind  it  was  related  to  the 
dyeing  side  of  that  word  and  not  to  the  dipping.  Applied  to  the 
baptizing  water  of  the  Church  it  developed  a  purifying  quality, 
and  sins  were  washed,  cleansed,  purified ;  but  applied  to  the  bap- 
tizing water  of  heretics,  it  developed  a  defiling  and  polluting 
quality  aggravating  sin.  The  water  of  heretics  was  like  a  bad 
dye;  it  spoiled  all  that  was  put  into  it;  it  defiled  and  polluted. 
Therefore  Tertullian  says,  "  tincti  apud  haereticos,  prof  ana  aqua^ 
maculati — the  tincted  bj'  heretics  are  stained  by  their  profane 
water;''''  those  tincted  in  heresy  (in  ha^resi  tinctos)  are  made  filthy 
(sordidatos) ;  their  tinction  is  an  infection  (tinctura  infecta) ;  it 
is  a  contagion  (contagione  tinctus)  ;  it  is  false,  contagious,  and 
profane  (meudacio  et  contagione  profani^  tinctionis).  The  same 
conception  of  heretical  water  as  a  qua>ii  dye  with  a  polluting 
quality,  is  presented  by  Cyprian,  "  those  tincted  outside  of  the 
CImrch  are  stained  b}^  the  pollution  of  their  profane  water"  {foria 
Ecclesiam  tincti,  maculati).  So  Augustine  declares  that  such 
when  tincted  are  infected  (tinctus  et  infectus).  And  Ambrose  in 
the  same  spirit  declares  that  the  twelve  at  Ephesus  were  com- 
manded by  Paul  to  be  baptized  (baptizari)  "  because  they  had 
not  been  tincted  (fuerunt  non  tincti)  washed,  made  white,  puri- 


TINGO.  609 

fied  but  had  been   defiled,   polluted,    stained  (sordidati)  by   an 
adulterous  {adulterino)  baptism  under  the  name  of  John." 

That  Tertullian  uses  tingo  in  a  sense  related  to  dyeing  may 
be  argued  from  his  unquestionable  use  of  the  word  for  dyeing  in 
I,  1305  :  "  Si  ah  initio  7'erum  Tyrii  tinguerent  If  from  the  begin- 
ning of  things  tlie  Tyrians  dyed;''''  and  II,  1094,  '•'■  Purpura  nee 
Tyrio  sic  est  intincta  ruhore  Such  purple  is  not  dyed  with  Tyrian 
l)urple."  On  this  passage  his  Annotator  quotes  from  Jamblichus, 
"  capillitio  in  fulvum  aurum  tincto.^''  Now,  translate  this  pas- 
sage either — "  with  hair  dipped  into  3'ellow  gold,"  or,  "  with  hair 
dyed  (by  passing)  into  yellow  gold,"  tinctus  expresses  in  itself  (by 
antecedent  usage),  dyed  and  "  in  fulvum  aurum  "  expresses  the 
specific  nature  of  the  d^^e,  or  tinctus  is  used  to  develop  the  dye- 
ing quality  which  belongs  to  "  fulvum  aurum,"  and  the  phrase 
means  dyed  a  golden-yellow.  There  was  no  dipping^  in  fact,  of 
the  hair  "  into  yellow  gold  "  or  into  a  yellow  dye  of  an^^  kind.  If 
dipping  be  introduced  it  is  wholly  subordinate  and  ministrant  to 
the  effect.  This  is  precisely  the  truth  with  reference  to  Tertul- 
lian's  vise  of  "tingo"  in  connection  with  baptizing  water,  and  as 
a  substitute  for  /9arr/Ca»  in  ideal  relations.  And  it  is  a  matter  of 
concluding  force  that  tingo  is  used  in  these  ideal  relations,  and 
no  other  word.  It  is  because  of  its  power  to  develop  quality  and 
bring  its  object  under  the  influence  of  such  quality  {quasi  dye) 
that  it  is  so  used.  Other  words  as  y.azadovu)^  demergo,  can  cover 
as  well  or  better  than  tingo ;  but  they  have  not  its  usage  for  ex- 
tracting qualitj'  from  the  covering  element,  and  therefore  are 
never  used  to  fill  the  place  of  [^aTzriXm  in  relations  where  quality 
is  to  be  communicated.     Let  us  look  at  the  evidence  for  this. 

Tingo  a  Substitute  for  (iaTzri'^u)  in  Ideal  Relations. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  Tertullian's  very  frequent  substi- 
tution oi  tingo  for  [ianr{^(u.  And  it  should  be  held  just  as  certain 
that  this  was  not  on  the  ground  that  tingo  to  dip  was  the  equiva- 
lent of  this  Greek  word.  Tertullian  well  knew  that  there  was  no 
such  equivalence  between  these  words,  for  he  was  a  Greek  scholar. 
When,  therefore,  he  substitutes  tingo  in  passages  where  the  Greek 
word  occurs  it  must  be  for  other  and  better  reasons  than  that  of 
word  equivalence.  The  fact  of  substitution  is  proved  by  the 
following  passages. 

Tertullian  I,  1212:  "John  in  preaching  the  baptism  (baptis- 
mum)   of  repentance   into  the  remission  of  sins,   announced  a 

39 


610  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

future  remission  through  Christ.  .  .  .  Likewise  John  only  bap- 
tized in  repentance ;  soon  one  would  come  who  should  baptize  in 
spirit  and  fire  ;  because  a  true  and  firm  faith  is  baptized  by  water 
into  salvation,  but  a  pretended  and  feeble  faith  is  by  fire  baptized 
into  condemnation — Item  in  sola  ptenitentia  tinguere ;  venturum 
mox  qui  tingueret  in  spiritu  et  igni.  Scilicet,  quia  vera  et  stabilis 
fides  aqua  tinguitur  in  salutem  ;  simulata  autem  et  infirma,  igni 
tinguitur  in  judicium." 

It  is  evident  that  tinguo  appears  here  as  the  substitute  for  the 
ISaTtT'Xu)  of  John  and  is  intended  to  fulfil  the  office  of  that  word 
whatever  it  was.  Tertullian  did  not  understand  that  oflice  to  be  a 
dipping  into  water,  for  none  appears  in  his  statement  and  none 
belongs  to  the  word.  When  he  drops  the  phraseology  of  Scrip- 
ture and  speaks  of  "  faith  by  water  tinguitur  in  salutem''^  water  is 
again  absolutely  excluded  as  the  element  of  dipping  as  it  is  ex- 
cluded in  Scripture  and  we  are  shut  up  to  the  interpretation  of  tin- 
guitur in  salutem  as  an  organic  phrase  from  which  "tinguitur," 
translate  as  you  maj',  is  inseparable,  and  the  joint  teaching  of  its 
parts  is,  that  a  firm  faith  is  made  fully  participant  of  salvation.  The 
same  remarks  may  be  made  of  the  phrase  igni  tinguitur  in  judi- 
cium. "Fire"  like  water  is  excluded  from  being  the  receiving 
element,  and  the  phrase  teaches  that  a  simulated  faith  is  brought 
fully  under  the  divine  condemnation.  Both  which  sentiments  are 
eminentl}'  scriptural. 

Cap.  XI,  De  Bapt. :  "  But  behold,  they  say,  the  Lord  came 
and  did  not  baptize  (tinxit).  For  we  read,  '  Nevertheless  he 
baptized  not  (no7i  tingue.bat)  but  his  disciples,'  as  if  John  had 
announced  that  he  would  baptize  {tincturum)  by  his  own  hands. 
...  He  will  baptize  {tinguet)  you,  that  is,  ye  shall  be  baptized 
(linguemini)  by  him  or  into  him  (in  ipsum).  But  let  it  not  trouble 
any  one  because  he  did  not  baptize  ijinguehat).  For  into  what 
should  he  baptize  (tingueret)'^  into  repentance?  to  what  purpose, 
then,  his  Forerunner?  into  the  remission  of  sins,  which  he 
gave  by  a  word  ?  into  himself,  whom  he  veiled  with  humility  ? 
into  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  had  not  yet  desceikled  from  the  Father? 
into  the  Church,  which  the  Apostles  had  not  yet  builded?  There- 
fore his  disciples  baptized  (tinguebant)  witli  the  same  baptism 
(baptismo)  as  that  of  John." 

It  is  certain,  L  That  tinguo  is  substituted  for  liai:ri%w\  2.  It  is 
certain  that  tinguo  is  not  used  for  a  naked  dipping  "into  repent- 
ance," "  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  "into  Himself,"  "into  the 


TINGO.  611 

Hply  Spirit,"  "into  the  Church;"  3.  It  is  certain,  that  these 
phrases  are  saturated  with  influence. 

1214:  "Whether  the  Apostles  were  baptized  (tincli)  or  re- 
mained unwashed  {illoti).^'' 

The  contrast  between  "tincti"  and  "illoti"  requires  that 
"tincti"  should  express  a  condition  effected  and  not  a  dipping. 

1217:  "  We  have  a  second  washing  (/auacrw^ji),  one  and  the 
same  (with  that  of  water)  to  wit,  of  blood  ;  of  which  the  Lord 
says,  '  I  have  to  be  baptized  (tingiii)  with  a  baptism  (baptismo),^ 
when  he  had  already  been  baptized  (tinctus  fuisset).  .  .  .  This  is 
Baptism  (Baptismus)  which  realizes  (reprsesentat)  the  washing 
(lavacrum)  of  water  when  it  has  not  been  received  and  restores 
it  when  lost." 

Here,  1.  Tinguo  fills  the  place  of  /iuTzri^u)  in  the  Scripture  text ; 
2.  It  is  associated  with  baptismo  in  blood  baptism  ;  3.  It  is  called 
"washing  of  blood;"  4.  It  is  said  to  be  "one  and  the  same"  with 
the  washing  of  water ;  5.  This  tinclio  (  =  lavacrum)  of  blood  is 
expresslj'  called  "  Baptismus."  Any  one  who  will  undertake  to 
hedge  up  this  tinguo  to  a  naked  dipping  will  find  a  good  deal  of 
work  on  hand. 

1222,  Cap.  XIX,  De  Bapt. :  "  The  Passover  furnishes  a  more 
solemn  day  for  Baptism  (Baptif;mo),  the  passion  of  the  Lord  in 
which  we  are  baptized  (tinguimur)  having  then  been  completed." 

"  The  passion  of  the  Lord  "  is  here  represented  as  the  receiv- 
ing element.  If  any  one  should  sa}^.  Then  we  are  dipped  (tin- 
guimur) in  it,  I  ask,  Has  the  passion  of  the  Lord  any  quality  be- 
longing to  it  which  is  designed  to  be  developed  by  this  dipping 
over  the  object  dipped?  If  so,  then  the  dipping  cannot  be  sepa- 
rated from  the  "passion,"  and  it  ceases  to  be  a  simple  dipping 
and  becomes  part  of  a  process  in  quasi  dyeing,  bringing  its  ob- 
ject under  that  peculiar  coloring,  quality  or  influence  which  be- 
longs to  the  "passion  of  the  Lord."  I  remark  again:  "Tingui- 
mur "  is  merely  another  spelling  for  baptizamur^  and  if  baptiza- 
mur  does  not  mean  a  naked  dipping,  then,  neither  can  Tertul- 
lian's  substitute. 

1239,  Cap.  VI,  De  Pcenit. :  "Is  there  one  Christ  for  the  bap- 
tized (intinctis)  another  for  the  hearers  (audientibus)  ?  .  .  .  That 
washing  (lavacruKn)  is  a  seal  to  faith ;  which  begins  and  is  com- 
mended by  the  faith  of  repentance.  We  are  not  washed  (ablui- 
mur)  that  we  may  cease  to  sin,  for  we  have  already  been  washed 
{loti  sumus)  in  heart  "  by  repentance.     "  For  this  first  baptism 


612  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

(washing  intinctio)  is  a  just  fear  (metus  integer).  .  .  .  If  we  cease 
to  sin  b}'^  tlie  waters,  we  put  on  (induimus)  innocence  by  neces- 
sity not  by  free  will  .  .  .  bound  by  baptism  {intinctione  alliyatus)." 

Is  this  use  of  intinctis^  intinctio^  with  the  equivalents  laimcrum^ 
loH  suvius  corde,  metus  integer^  induimus  innocentiam^  "  cease  to 
sin  hy  the  waters.^''''  a  naked  dipping? 

II,  275  :  "  I  know  that  the  body  is  washed  {caro  tinguitur) 
(=  caro  abluitur^  cop.  8,  De  Besur.)]  if  sins  are  imputed  to  the 
bod}^,  the  guilt  of  the  soul  precedes  ;"  compare  with  147  :  "  '  These 
are  they  who  have  come  out  of  great  tribulation  and  have  washed 
their  robe  and  made  it  white  in  the  blood  of  tlie  Lamb;'  for  the 
body  (caro)  is  the  robe  of  the  soul.  Impurities  (sordes)  are 
washed  away  (ahluuntur)  by  baptism  (baptismate),  but  stains 
(maculse)  are  whitened  by  martyrdom." 

Here  tingo  (used  elsewhere  as  we  have  seen  for  the  lavacrum 
sanguinis,  martyrdom)  is  used  for  spiritual  washing,  cleansing, 
purification,  to  the  absolute  rejection  of  all  modal  action. 

495  :  "  To  be  baptized  {lingui)  for  the  dead."  Whatever  may 
be  the  meaning  of  "  baptized  "  in  this  passage,  that,  no  more  no 
less,  TertuUian  meant  should  be  the  meaning  of  lingui. 

862  :  '"As  many  as  have  been  baptized  (tincti  sumus)  into 
Jesus  Christ,  have  been  baptized  (tincti  sumus)  into  his  death.'" 
The  same  remark  may  be  made  of  this  as  of  the  preceding  quo- 
tation, with  the  additional  evidence  furnished  by  its  fuller  state- 
ment of  the  impossibilit}'  of  a  mere  dipping. 

991:  "Therefore  if  the  condition  is  thereby  changed,  and 
having  been  baptized  (tincta)  into  Christ  puts  on  Christ,  re- 
deemed by  the  blood  of  the  Lord  and  of  the  Lamb." 

Here  is  an  express  statement  that  "in  Christum  tincta"  effects 
a  thorough  change  of  condition,,  which  can  only  arise  from  "  in 
Christum  "  being  possessed  of  a  qualit}'^  which  is  communicated 
(like  a  quasi  dye)  to  the  object  brought  under  its  influence. 
And  this  is  precisely  what  has  been  proved  to  be  the  meaning  of 
^^  baptized  itiTO  Christ." 

100  :  "  Commanding  that  they  should  baptize  (tinguerent)  into 
the  Father,  and  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  not  into  one  (non  in  unvm). 
For  we  baptize  (tinguimur)  not  once  but  thrice,  at  (ad)  each 
name  into  each  person  (in  singulas  personas).''^ 

Here  the  Fatlier,  the  Son,  and  tiie  Holy  Spirit,  are  declared 
and  expounded  (in  singulas  personas)  to  l)e  the  ideal  elements  as 
plainlj'  as  language  can  express  it.     Is  this  a  bare  dipping  ? 


TINGO.  613 

TertuUian's  tingo. 

Nothing  can  be  more  obvious  than  the  purpose  of  Tertullian  to 
induct  tingo  into  the  place  filled  by  the  Bible  [ianriX.<o.  In  doing 
this  it  was  not  on  the  ground  of  believing  that  tingo  was  the 
equivalent  of  the  Greek  word  in  meaning  and  range  of  usage, 
but  because  he  knew  of  no  word  in  the  Latin  language  which  had 
an  element  in  its  meaning  and  a  direction  of  usage  so  capable  of 
being  extended  into  the  peculiar  line  of  usage  as  that  which 
characterized  the  Scriptural  usage  of  (ianriZu).  In  this  judgment 
he  showed  scholarship  and  sagacity.  Between  tingo  and  /3a7rTw 
there  is  a  very  remarkable  equivalence  and  identity  of  meaning 
and  usage.  And  as  it  is  out  of  a  stem  of  fidxruj  that  f^anriZui  pro- 
ceeds (dropping  coloring  quality  and  developing  quality  without 
color)  it  was  natural  for  Tertullian  to  suppose  that  the  functions 
of  tingo  could  be  extended  so  as  to  take  in  uncolored  quality  as 
well  as  colored  quality  without  forming  a  new  word  for  this  duty. 
But  his  effort  was  unsuccessful.  The  Latin  word  was  already 
burdened  with  a  double  duty  (dipping  and  dyeing)  and  the  at- 
tempt to  introduce  it  into  a  third  sphere  of  action  broke  down. 
There  was  an  element  in  tingo  which  was  susceptible  of  being 
wrought  out  in  this  direction,  but  the  people  would  not  undertake 
the  task  nor  countenance  it  when  undertaken  by  others.  Neither 
would  they  form  a  new  word  for  the  exigency.  This  had  been, 
already,  done  by  the  Greeks,  and  the}'^  preferred  the  adoption  of 
that  word  sanctified  by  its  appropriation  to  a  phraseological  com- 
bination such  as  had  never  before  entered  into  the  language  of 
man.  Nearly  all  languages  into  which  the  Bible  has  been  trans- 
lated have  presented  the  same  difficulty,  and  by  almost  unanimous 
consent  it  has  been  solved  in  the  same  way. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  introduce  into  the  Baptist  Bible 
immerse  as  the  equivalent  of  ^anri'^u).  This  word  will  answer 
well  enough  for  a  class  of  cases  in  Classic  history ;  but  it  utterly 
breaks  down  when  it  is  applied  to  the  organic  phrases  of  inspira- 
tion, with  the  spirit  of  which  it  has  nothing  in  common,  and  has 
no  element  in  itself  or  in  its  derivation  to  develop  the  quality  of 
those  wonderful  elements  of  influence  with  which  it  is  brought 
into  the  most  anomalous  combination.  The  friends  of  this  word 
in  such  use  claim  that  the  tingo  of  Tertullian  means  to  dip  ;  if 
this  be  so,  then  this  is  the  word  that  they  should  have  introduced 
into  their  Bible ;  that  they  have  not  done  so,  and  have  adopted  a 


614  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

word  of  essentially  clifTerent  meaning,  is  proof  that  it  could  not 
be  so  used,  and  is  proof  that  a  scliolar  like  Tertullian  never 
meant  to  introduce  tingo^  in  this  sense,  as  the  equivalent  substi- 
tute for  [■ianri'l.a). 

The  effort  to  introduce  "immerse"  into  the  English  Bible  will 
fail  more  disastrously  than  did  the  far  more  wisely  considered 
effort  of  Tertullian  to  introduce  "  tingo  "  into  the  Latin  Bible. 
Even  Tertullian  acknowledged  the  imperfection  of  his  material 
by  commingling  bajytizo  with  tingo^  and  the  people  accepted  this 
judgment  b}'  dropping  the  imperfection  out  of  their  Bibles  alto- 
gether. 

This  use  of  tingo  is  very  conclusive  proof  that  jSa-Kzc^io  is  not 
used  for  simple  water  covering. 

It  is  a  fact,  that  no  word  expressive  of  mere  passage  into  or 
covering  in  simple  water  was  ever  proposed  by  Patristic  writers 
to  fill  the  place  of  /Ja-rt'Cw  in  its  New  Testament  phraseological 
combinations.  It  is  a  fact,  that  tingo  (which  is  not  expressive  of 
mere  passage  into  or  covering  in  simple  water,  but  which  is  used 
to  carry  its  object  into  coloring  water  and  medicated  water  for 
tl>e  purpose  of  bringing  such  object  under  such  influence,  and 
hence  secures  the  power  directly  to  express  the  communication  of 
quality)  is  used  as  a  substitute  for  [iar.ri'^u)  in  all  its  peculiar  ideal 
New  Testament  combinations.  The  conclusion  from  these  facts  is 
compulsor}^,  that  the  reason  for  the  use  of  this  word  and  the 
rejection  of  those  words,  is  to  be  found  in  that  characteristic  in 
which  it  difl'ers  from  them.  And  this  conclusion  assumes  a  pos- 
itive certainty  in  view  of  the  additional  fact,  that  ^a-Kri^m  is 
derived  from  a  word  which  has  the  same  identical  characteristics 
which  thus  distinguished  tingo.  When  to  this  is  added,  that  the 
ideal  relations  of  fiaTZTi^iu  necessitate  the  development  of  those 
influences  belonging  to  the  several  ideal  elements,  can  evidence 
be  more  complete  to  prove,  that  the  office  of  fianri'^u)  is  not  that 
of  a  mere  water  coverer,  but  for  the  development  of  the  noblest 
spiritual  influence  ?     This  is  its  sole  New  Testament  use. 

Direct  Proof  that  the  Coniple  men  tart/  Relationii  of  (iar.ri'^w  are 

Ideal. 

In  adducing  final  evidence  in  proof  that  the  complementary 
relations  of  ftanri'^iu  in  the  New  Testament,  and  as  used  in  corre- 
sponding relations  by  Patristic  writers,  are  ideal  and  not  physical, 


IDEAL    USE.  615 

I  will  offer  modified  statements  of  these  relations  strongly  con- 
firmatory of  this  position. 

Clem.  Rom.,  Apost.  Const.,  1041 :  '•  Disciple  first  all  the  nations, 
and  then  he  added  this,  '  And  baptize  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Therefore  let 
the  baptized  in  his  renunciation  say:  'I  disjoin  myself  from 
Satan,  and  his  works,  and-  his  pomps,  and  his  service,  and  his 
angels,  and  his  inventions,  and  all  subject  to  him;  and  I  conjoin 
myself  with  Christ,  and  believe,  and  am  baptized  into  the  one 
Un begotten,  the  only  true  God  Almighty,  the  Father  of  the  Christ, 
Creator  and  former  of  all,  of  whom  are  all  things  ;  and  into  the 
Lord  Jesus  the  Christ,  his  only  begotten  Son,  the  first  born  of 
every  creature,  begotten  (not  made)  by  the  good  pleasure  of  the 
Father,  before  the  ages,  through  whom  were  all  things  which  are 
in  heaven  and  upon  earth,  visible  and  invisible;  .  .  .  and  I  am 
baptized  into  the  H0I3'  Ghost,  that  is  the  Paraclete,  who  hath 
wrought  in  all  saints  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.'  " 

Tliis  passage  furnishes  conclusive  evidence  that  the  baptism  is 
Ideally  "  into  the  only  true  God,"  by  reason  of  the  contrasted 
relation  with  Satan  in  the  past,  and  the  relation  to  be  established 
with  the  only  true  God  in  the  future.  The  relation  of  the  impeni- 
tent man  toward  Satan  is  one  of  complete  subjection  and  con- 
formity. The  absoluteness  of  this  relation  is  described  by  the 
Bible  as  a  baptism — "  The  whole  world  lieth  in  the  Wicked  One 
(ev  Toi  TTo^TjjOw)."  And  on  the  other  hand  the  Bible  describes  (in  op- 
position to  this  baptism  inducing  complete  subjection  and  con- 
formity to  Satan)  the  subjection  and  conformit}'  of  the  Christian 
to  the  only  true  God  as  a  baptism  thus — "And  we  are  in  the 
Teue  One,  in  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  this  is  the  True  God."  1 
John  5:  19,  20.  It  would  be  difficult  to  construct  more  absolute 
evidence,  that  the  baptism  of  the  redeemed  is  a  jyassing  into  and, 
as  a  consequence,  the  abiding  in  tlie  True  God.  The  evidence  is 
no  less  conclusive,  that  the  import  of  this  baptism  is  complete 
SUBJECTION  AND  CONFORMITY  to  the  Truc  God.  This  recover}^  out 
of  subjection  to  Satan  and  introduction  into  subjection  to  the 
true  God  is  the  end  of  redemption  and  the  ultimate  prayer  of  the 
Redeemer — "  I  pra}'^  for  them  .  .  .  keep  in  thy  Name  those  thou 
hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are.  While  I  was  with 
them  I  kept  them  in  thy  Name.  ...  I  pray  that  thou  shouldst 
keep  them  out  op  the  Evil  One.  ...  I  pray  that  they  all  may 
be  one  as  thou  Father  in  Me  and  1  in  Thee,  that  they,  also,  may 


616  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

be  one  in  Us"  (John  17).  Therefore  he  sent  Paul  (Acts  26: 18) 
to  the  nations  "to  turn  them  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto 
God;"  and  his  fellow- Apostles  (Matt.  28  :  19)  "  to  baptize  the  dis- 
cipled  of  the  nations  into  ^AeNAME  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

948 :  "  Let  one  baptism  only  suffice,  that  which  is  given  into 
the  death  of  the  Lord ;  not  by  impious  heretics,  but  by  blameless 
priests  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  For  as  there  is  one  God,  one  Christ,  and  one  Para- 
clete, and  also  one  death  in  the  body  of  the  Lord,  so,  also,  let 
there  be  one  baptism  given  irito  that  death." 

Ignatius,  921 :  "There  are  not  three  Fathers,  nor  three  Sons, 
nor  three  Paracletes.  Therefore  the  Lord  sending  the  Apostles 
to  disciple  all  the  nations  commanded  them  to  baptize  into  the 
Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  not 
INTO  a  three-named,  nor  into  three  incarnations,  but  into  three  of 
equal  honor.'''' 

Tertullian  II,  61:  "  Menander,  a  magician  and  disciple  of 
Simon,  held  the  same  sentiments  with  his  master,  and  whatever 
Simon  said  that  he  was,  Menander  declared  himself  to  be,  deny- 
ing that  any  one  could  be  saved  unless  they  should  have  been 
baptized  in  His  name." 

II,  190 :  "  Commanding  that  they  should  baptize  {in  Patrem 
et  Filium  et  Spiritum  Sanctum,  non  in  unum)  into  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  into  One.  For  we  are  not 
baptized  once  but  thrice  (ad  singula  noniina  in  personas  singulas) 
at  each  name  into  each  Person." 

II,  1177  :  This  is  a  note  by  an  Annotator  (Thomas  Corbin,  a 
monk,  born  A.D.  1694)  on  a  passage,  I,  1212:  "'He  shall  bap- 
tize you,'  means  ye  shall  be  baptized  {per  ipsum  vel  in  ipsum)  by 
him  or  into  him."  The  Annotator  remarks,  "per  ijysum.  Ejus 
nomine  ac  authoritate,  by  his  name  and  authority.  In  ipsum. 
In  ejus  virtutem  ac  nomen,  ut  scilicet  transeatis  in  nomen  Christi, 
deinceps  Christiani  appellandi.  Into  his  virtue  and  name,  so  as 
if  you  pass  into  the  name  of  Christ,  and  afterward  be  called 
Christians.  Thus  St.  Paul  says.  Gal.  3  :  27,  As  many  as  have 
been  baptized  {in  Christo  [Vulgate])  in  Christ  {Grsecedq  Xpiarw, 
in  Christum)  have  put  on  Christ." 

I  presume  that  this  exposition  of  "  in  ipsum"  as  into  his  vir- 
tue and  Name,  and  its  further  exposition  as  a  pa6'Si«(/  into  the 
name  of  Christ  (as  into  a  quasi  dye)  giving  the  coloring  of  its 


IDEAL    USE.  617 

"  virtue "  so  as  to  make  Ghristiani,  and  the  correction  of  the 
translation  of  Jerome  (in  accordance  witli  this  exposition)  from 
"in  Christo"  to  in  Ch?~istum,  will  satisfy  most  persons  that  this 
Annotator,  at  least,  did  very  thoroughly  believe  that  the  /Sa-rt'^w 
of  the  Scriptures  was  organically  related  to  ideal  and  not  to 
physical  elements ;  and  that  he  believed  Tertullian  to  be  of  the 
same  faith. 

iRENiEUS,  661  :  "  Others  conduct  to  the  water  (if'  udiop)  and 
baptizing  speak  thus :  '  Into  the  name  of  the  unknown  Father  of 
all,  into  truth  mother  of  all,  into  him  who  descended  into  Jesus, 
into  union,  and  redemption,  and  communion  of  the  powers.'" 

Whatever  of  heresy  or  folly  there  may  be  in  such  utterance, 
grammatical  law,  I  suppose,  applies  to  heresy  and  orthodoxy  alike. 
Whether  any  one  will  undertake  by  its  aid  to  secure  "  by  the 
authority  of"  or  "  unto"  or  "  in,"  or  "  in  order  to,"  or  "with  ref- 
erence to,"  out  of  this  "into  unknown  Father,"  and  into  truth, 
mother,  etc.,  etc.,  I  do  not  know.  Some  probably  will  conclude, 
that  if  these  heretics  could  believe  in  one  descending  out  of  the 
Pleroma  or  somewhere  else  "  into  Jesus  "  (etV  Irjffouv)  they  could 
not  have  felt  any  special  difficulty  in  baptizing  "into  the  unknown 
Father,  into  the  truth  mother,  into  the  descending  one,  into 
union,  and  redemption,  and  communion,"  and  into  any  other  im- 
aginable thing.  But  sometimes  folly  and  error  may  be  made  to 
pay  tribute  to  grammatical  truth. 

657:  "This  heresy  is  sent  by  Satan  for  the  denial  of  baptism, 
which  is  regeneration  ^/^to  God."  .  .  .  (929):  "And  giving  to  the 
disciples  the  power  of  regeneration  into  God  (in  Deum),  saying 
to  them,  'Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,'  etc.  The  Holy 
Spirit  descended  into  the  Son  of  God  (in  Filium  Dei)  made  Son 
of  man,  thus  accustoming  himself  to  dwell  in  the  human  race  and 
to  rest  in  men,  and  to  dwell  in  the  image  of  God,  working  in  them 
the  will  of  the  Father,  and  renewing  them  from  their  old  natui'e 
into  the  newness  (in  novitatem)  of  Christ." 

Why  not  accept  the  ideal  baptism  into  the  Deity  which  finds  its 
counterpart  (in  the  element  of  withinness)  on  almost  ever}'  page 
of  Scripture  ? 

1074 :  "  How  can  men  be  saved  unless  it  be  God  who  has  vvrought 
out  salvation  upon  the  earth?  And  how  shall  man  pass  into  God 
()(wf>TJ<Tec  eii;  Beov)  except  God  has  PASSED  into  man  (e\q  avOpu)-!:ov)V^ 
The  argument  for  man's  "  entering  into  God  "  is  drawn  from  the 
incarnation,  the  Son  of  God  entering  into  man.     Without  claiming 


618  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

any  paralleiism,  there  is,  surely,  in  the  incarnation,  a  basis  laid 
for  the  ideal  conception  of  a  baptism  of  the  redeemed  into  the 
Name  of  the  Deit}-. 

Clemens  Alex.,  093:  "The  man  baptized  into  God  has  entered 
into  God  (e}?  O^w  ^a^zrinO^iq  £'.<;  6=.w  i;^fli/>Tj<T£v),  and  has  received 
power  over  scorpions  and  to  tread  on  serpents — the  powers  of 
evil.  And  to  the  Apostles  he  commanded, 'Go,  preach,  and  them 
that  believe  baptize  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;'  into  whom  {dq  out)  we  are  born  again, 
having  been  made  superior  to  all  other  powers."  Could  language 
be  more  ex[)licit  than  this  ? 

Origen  III,  713:  '■'■  Non  lavantur  omnes  in  salute ni ;  All  are 
not  washed  into  salvation.'"  This  quotation  is  from  Origen  on 
Ezekiel,  which  appears  in  a  Latin  translation  by  Jerome.  In  a 
note  on  "lavantur,"  we  have  this  Greek  citation:  "Catena?  MSS. 
T(bv  fiu-7'.^(>;ji'/wv  nl  pAv  e\<;  nwrrifiiav  ^ia-Kri^nvzat ;  Of  the  baptized  some 
are  baptized  into  salvation."  This  is  fresh  proof  of  the  equiva- 
lence of /Ja—rtw  and  laro.  The  "washing"  not  being  due  to  a 
dipping  or  covering  in  simple  water,  but  a  washing,  cleansing, 
l^urification  from  sin,  a  spiritual,  saving  washing  (in  saliitem), 
due  to  the  divine  influence  impregnating  the  water.  "  Hear,  O 
catechumens,  while  you  are  catechumens,  while  you  are  not  yet 
baptized,  and  come  to  the  washing  that  you  ma}'  be  washed  into 
salvation  (in  salutem),  nor  be  washed  as  some  have  been  washed, 
but  not  into  salvation  (in  salutem),a,s  those  who  receive  the  water 
but  do  not  receive  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  who  is  washed  into  salvation 
(in  salutem)  receives  both  the  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Simon 
was  not  washed  into  salvation  {in  saJutcm) ;  he  received  (accepit) 
the  water,  but  did  not  receive  the  Holy  Spirit.  Having  obtained 
bai)tisma  {baj)tisnia),  he  continued  in  fellowship  with  Philip;  but 
because;  he  was  not  washed  into  salvation  (non  erat  lotus  in  salu- 
tem), he  was  condemned  by  him  who,  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  said  to 
him — 'Let  thy  money  be  into  perdition  with  thee  Pecunia  tua 
tecum  sit  in  perditionem.^  " 

This  passage  furnishes  conclusive  evidence:  1,  As  to  the  ideal 
use  of  fiar.-i'^w  (s]q  (TcoTYjpctx'^)  ;  2.  As  to  its  attaining  the  meaning 
to  icash,  to  cleanse,  to  purify  spiritualhj,  in  absolute  use,  secured 
through  use  with  ideal  elements,  spiritually  pure  and  purifying 
in  their  nature ;  3.  As  to  the  Accusative  and  its  preposition  rep- 
resenting an  ideal  element  into  which  an  object  is  represented  as 
passing,  for  the  i)urpose  of  indicating  that  such  object  is  brought 


IDEAL    USE.  619 

fully  under  such  influence  as  belongs  to  the  ideal  element,  what- 
ever that  may  be  {in  salutem,  in  perditionem). 

Basil  M.  Ill,  1429  :  "He  who  is  baptized  (<) /5a7rr:C«//£vw?)  is 
baptized  into  the  Trinity  (sk  Tpidda  [iarz-i^e-m)^  into  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  not  into  principalities  {dq  Apyac)^  yior  into 
POWERS  {eiq  dui'd/j.ecq)^  nor  into  any  SUCH  THINGS  among  creatures 

The  redeemed  are  baptized  into  the  fully  revealed  Deity  =  made 
subject  and  assimilated  unto  Him.  They  are  not  baptized  into 
Principalities,  or  Powers,  or  any  Creatures  =  made  subject  and 
assimilated  to  them. 

Gregory  Thaum.,  1180:  "Then  Jesus  comes  (a-d)  from  Galilee 
(£;?)  to  Jordan  (tt/jo?)  unto  John  to  be  baptized  {i3a-TL<T(i7jva(.)  by 
him.  .  .  .  But  John  said,  How  shall  I  wash  {kouaw)  the  spotless 
and  the  sinless?  .  .  .  1183:  Baptizing  others  I  baptize  them  into 
thy  Name  (ek  ~o  aou  o'^i/ia),  baptizing  thee  of  whom  shall  I  make 
mention?  Into  whose  Name  (ek  rcvo^  o^o/ia)  shall  I  baptize  thee? 
Into  that  of  the  Father  ?  But  thou  hast  the  entire  Father  in 
thyself,  and  thou  art  entire  in  the  Father.  Or,  into  that  of  the 
Son  ?  But  there  is  none  other  beside  thee  by  nature  the  Son  of 
God.  Or,  into  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  But  he  is  wholly  with 
thee,  as  of  the  same  nature,  and  the  same  will,  and  the  same  mind, 
and  the  same  power,  and  the  same  honor,  and  with  thee  receives 
the  same  worship  from  all.  Baptize,  thei'efore,  if  thou  wilt,  O 
Lord,  baptize  me,  the  Baptist.  .  .  .  Crown  by  thy  touch  my  head, 
that  running  before  thy  kingdom,  crowned  as  a  Forerunner,  I 
may  fitly  cvy,^ Behold!  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin 
of  the  world.''  "  This  passage  is  a  remarkable  testimony  against 
the  physical  use  of  ^a-zi^u):  1.  It  presents  the  interchange  of 
jSaTzri'Cio  and  ^(luoj  as  equivalents,  Xouco  being  used  for  spiritual  and 
not  physical  cleansing,  as  shown  by  the  difficulty  suggested  in 
"  washing  the  spotless  and  the  sinless."  There  would  be  no  more 
difficulty  in  dipping  or  covering  in  simple  water  a  "  spotless  and 
sinless  "  one  than  in  dipping  or  covering,  in  like  manner,  Simon 
Magus  while  "in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bonds  of  iniquit}'." 
2.  The  answer  of  John  to  his  own  question,  "  Into  whose  Name 
shall  I  baptize  thee?"  declaring  the  oneness  of  nature,  equalit}^ 
in  dignit}'^,  and  likeness  in  character  of  the  Son  with  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  shows  (1)  that  baptism  into  the  Name  was 
an  ideal  baptism,  and  that  its  import  was  subjection  and  assimila- 
tion, and  therefore  it  was  impossible  to  baptize  the  Lord  Jesus 


620  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Christ  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  or  into  his  own  Name,  or  into 
the  Name  of  the  H0I3'  Ghost.  3.  Lilie  proof  is  found  in  tlie 
baptism  asked  by  John  for  himself,  namely,  by  the  touch  of  the 
Saviour's  hand  laid  upon  his  head,  communicating  a  baptism, 
making  him  "  fit  "  to  Herald  "  the  Lamb  of  God  who  "  (by  his 
personal  baptism  into  an  atoning  death,  and  its  application  to  the 
souls  of  men  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost)  "  taketh  away 

THE  8INS  OF  THE  WORLD." 


Proof  that  the  Patristic  Banri^m  has  no  Physical  Use  ended. 

We  have  now  passed  in  review  all  the  elements  which  enter  into 
a  determination  of  the  question  :  Do  Patristic  writers  use  /Jarrrt'Cw 
and  [idnzLtrixa  in  religious  applications  physically  as  meaning  simply 
to  dip  or  to  cover  for  a  moment  in  water  ?  Or,  do  they  use  them 
in  such  applications,  1.  In  ideal  phrases,  to  develop  and  to  impart 
to  the  baptized  object  the  characteristic  of  the  ideal  element  ? 
And  2.  Absolutely  to  express  pregnantly  the  idea  of  the  entire 
phrase  ? 

I  do  not  say  that  all  the  evidence  bearing  on  this  question  has 
been  presented,  for  tens  of  thousands  of  pages  written  within  the 
first  five  centuries  after  Christianity  have  come  down  to  us,  and 
in  those  pages  few  subjects  occupy  a  more  prominent  position 
than  tliatof  Christian  Baptism;  it  would  not  therefore  be  possible 
to  present  all  that  bears  upon  the  subject  within  this  limited 
period  short  of  many  volumes.  But  all  that  bears  upon  the  sub- 
ject (as  diverse  elements  of  evidence  exercising  a  control  in  de- 
termining this  question  under  consideration)  lias,  I  believe,  been 
presented. 

1.  Tlie  evidence  as  to  the  use  and  meaning  of  [idnzinim  is  of 
the  most  satisfactory  character  as  showing,  1.  Tiiat  it  has  no 
usage,  physical  or  ideal,  in  Classic  writings  ;  2.  That  it  has  no 
physical  use  in  Inspired  writings;  but  is  solely  employed  in  ideal 
combinations  to  express  the  profoundest  spiritual  changes  in  the 
condition  of  the  soul ;  3.  That  this  usage  is  perpetuated  in  Pa- 
tristic writings,  with  the  additional  abundant  absolute  use  of 
i3di:Ti(Jiia  to  express  directly  the  spiritual  condition  which  was 
originally  distributed  through  an  organic  phrase.  The  Patristic 
use  of  this  word  is  in  the  most  absolute  accord  with  that  of  the 
New  Testament  so  far  as  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  concerned ; 


IDEAL    USE.  621 

wbile  it  is  in  as  absolute  discord  so  far  as  the  agency  in  effecting 
the  ^dnritrim  is  concerned  by  the  association  of  water  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  its  efficient  production.  For  this  there  is  no  just 
New  Testament  authority'  and  but  little  which  has  any  such  sem- 
blance. There  is  no  statement  of  any  inspired  writer  in  which 
ftoLTZTiff/jLa  appears  as  the  I'esult  of  the  conjoint  use  and  influence  of 
water  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  say  that  there  is  a  rare  passage 
in  which  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit  appear  (without  the  mention 
of  baptism  and  without  the  statement  of  their  conjunct  action) 
which  is  supposed  to  refer  to  baptism  and  supposed  to  indicate 
conjoint  operation,  is  to  say  nothing  against  the  absolute  truth 
of  the  above  statement,  nothing  to  overturn  the  whole  scope  of 
inspired  teaching,  nothing  which  can  furnish  an  adequate  basis 
for  faith  to  rest  upon. 

Evidence  from  every  direction  points  to  the  same  conclusion, 
namely,  the  (^dnnaim  of  Inspiration  and  of  early  Christian  writers 
has  no  physical  usage,  the  baptizing  water  in  Scripture  being 
used  to  symbolize  the  nature  of  the  spiritual  ^dnnaim  effected 
solely  b}^  the  Holy  Ghost  whenever  and  however  operating,  while 
the  Patristic  water  is  putatively  impregnated  with  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  as  a  conjoint  agency  effects  the  spiritual 
j3dT:Ti(T/j.a ;  but  in  neither  case  is  the  (idnnaim  a  physical  covering 
in  the  water. 

2.  The  evidence  that  these  earl}'^  Christian  writers  use  udan  xal 
nvsoij-art  as  a  conjoint  agency  to  effect  Christian  baptism,  a 
thorough  change  in*  the  spiritual  condition  and  not  a  physical 
covering  of  the  body  in  water,  is  so  clear  and  so  full  as  to  admit 
of  no  addition. 

3.  The  evidence  that  the  burial  in  water  was  not  the  Christian 
ftd.7tTC(T;j.a^  but  when  practiced  (for  hardly  a  day  passed  in  which 
baptism  did  not  take  place  without  it)  it  was  the  symbol  of  a 
wholly  diverse  thing,  namely,  of  the  burial  of  Christ  in  the  sepul- 
chre, is  complete.  No  one,  heathen  or  Christian,  ever  called  a 
burial  in  earth  or  in  rock  a  baptism  ;  and  if  a  covering  in  water 
for  a  moment  has  been  regarded  as  a  likeness  of  Christ's  burial 
in  the  rock,  it  was  not  therefore  a  likeness  of  Christ's  baptism  on 
the  Cross.  This  likeness  to  Christ's  burial  in  the  manner  of 
using  the  water  has  nothing  to  do  with  Christ's  baptism,  does 
not  enter  as  an  essential  element  into  Christian  baptism,  Patrists 
themselves  being  judges,  and  has  no  shadow  of  appearance  in 
the  baptism  of  the  Scriptures. 


622  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

The  evidence  for  the  use  of  /SaTzrH^uj  n,s  concurrent  with  that  of 
other  sources  of  evidence,  now  referred  to,  is  as  perfect  as  could 
be  desired  : 

1.  The  Patristic  and  the  Classic  usage  of  iSaTzrH^cu,  where  they 
meet  together,  is  identically  the  same.  (1.)  Both  employ  it  to  ex- 
press the  loss  of  vessels  and  of  human  beings  in  the  depths  of 
the  sea  without  recover}'  ;  (2.)  Both  employ  it  to  express  the 
thorough  drunkenness  and  insensibility  induced  by  excessive 
wine-drinking.  This  usage  is  entirely  foreign  from  and  inconsis- 
tent with  the  usage  of  this  word  to  express  a  raomentar}'  dipping 
in  water  employed  in  a  religious  rite. 

2.  This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  use  of  other  words  to 
express  this  momentary  water  covering,  which  words  do  not  ap- 
pear in  the  ideal  relations  of  fianri'^u). 

3.  Other  words  are  used  by  Patristic  writers  in  ideal  relations 
to  express  controlling  influence,  and  they  use  /3a7rr;'J<o  in  the  same 
or  in  kindred  ideal  relations  (outside  of  the  religious  sphere)  to 
express  in  like  manner  controlling  influence.  Classical  usage  of 
the  word  shows  that  its  primary  meaning  adapts  it  in  the  most 
perfect  manner  to  such  ideal  use. 

4.  Independent  of  the  same  grammatical  forms  which  appear 
in  the  religious  use  of  [ianri'^uj  as  in  its  use  out  of  that  sphere 
when  employed  ideally,  going  to  show  its  ideal  religious  use, 
there  are  evidences  in  added  explanatory  phraseology  which 
show  that  such  was  its  use. 

5.  There  are  no  such  grammatical  forms  or  explanatory  terms 
which  show  a  physical  use  of  fia-rtri'^uj. 

0.  This  absence  of  all  evidence  of  the  merely  physical  use  of 
[ianriXuj  within  the  religious  sphere  receives  a  profoundly  confirm- 
atory seal  as  true,  from  the  entire  absence  of  any  such  usage  in 
the  New  Testament. 


CONCLUSION.  623 


ORIGIN    OF    INQUIRY. 


This  "Inquiry  into  the  usage  of  ^a-KxiXu)  with  a  view  to  its  appli- 
cation to  Scripture  baptism,^^  is  now  completed. 

The  apology  for  undertaking  it  is  this, — my  own  personal  in- 
struction. The  treatment  of  the  subject  as  heretofore  conducted 
left  the  merits  of  the  case,  in  some  respects  at  least,  clouded  with 
uncertainty  and  embarrassed  with  perplexity.  For  my  own  satis- 
faction I  sought  to  find  out  the  reason  for  this  unsatisfactory 
result.  If  an}'^  one  should  be  disposed  to  say,  "  A  countr}'^  Pas- 
tor is  not  qualified  for  such  work:"  without  admitting  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  remark  as  it  applies  to  my  brethren,  I  cheerfully 
accept  it  as  it  applies  to  myself,  and  only  apologetically  add,  that 
I  have  supposed,  the  least  endowed  have  a  right  to  do  the  best 
they  can  for  their  own  instruction. 

The  apolog}'  for  publication  is  this :  The  usage  of  the  word  having 
been  traced  through  Classic,  Jewish,  Inspired,  and  Patristic  writ- 
ings, the  results  appeared  to  myself  so  clear,  so  certain,  so  harmoni- 
ous, so  complete,  so  competent  to  solve  every  difficulty  heretofore 
unsolvable,  that  it  seemed  to  be  not  improper  to  submit  those  re- 
sults, not  for  the  instruction,  but  for  the  consideration  of  others. 

It  seems  to  be  proper  to  say,  that  the  conclusions  reached  in 
Classic  Baptism  were  not  reached  and  published  without  having 
previously  examined  what  was  the  usage  of  Jewish,  Inspired,  and 
Patristic  writers,  therebj'  originating  the  temptation  to  color  the 
usage  of  those  spheres,  when  afterward  examined,  to  bring  them 
into  harmony  with  previously  announced  conclusions  ;  but  the 
conclusions  in  Classic  Baptism  were  only  adopted  and  announced 
after  the  entire  field  had  been  examined,  and  the  results  of  each 
sphere  of  distinctive  use  had  been  brought  into  comparison,  and 
an  adjustment  made  so  as  to  bring  all  into  the  most  perfect  har- 
mony, so  far  as  I  was  competent  to  judge.  With  the  conclusions 
reached,  the  materials  on  which  those  conclusions  rest,  are  also 
submitted;  so  that  each  one  can  form  an  independent  judgment 
for  himself.  No  dicta  are  addressed  to  recipient  masses ;  evi- 
dence aixl  conclusion  are  submitted  for  the  consideration  of  those 
who  have  equal  right  (and  competency  beyond  my  own)  to  form 
a  personal  and  final  judgment.     I  shall  submit  to  that  judgment. 


624  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

.Results  in  brief. 

1.  The  relation  of  iSa-ri^u)  with  /Sarrw.  It  is  of  great  importance 
to  determine  the  relation  of  fianriZa}  with  iSd-Tzrw  ;  whether  it  is  with 
that  stem  which  signifies  to  dip  or  with  that  which  signifies  to  dye. 

Whether  this  relation  be  with  the  one  or  the  other  this  is  cer- 
tain, it  could  neither  mean  "  to  dip,"  nor  "to  dj^e."  Derived  woi-ds 
are  not  simple  duplicates  of  words  from  which  they  originate. 

We  say,  that  this  word  does  not  originate  in  (idnru)  to  dip  ;  1. 
Because  it  does  not  mean  to  dip  nor  any  act  which  is  a  modifica- 
tion of  dip,  nor,  3'et,  expressive  immediately  of  any  act  whatever, 
but  making  demand  for  a  certain  condition,  the  act  effecting  which 
is  left  at  will.  2.  Because  it  does  not  mean  to  wet,  or  to  ivash  by 
dijoping.,  or  an}'^  other  effect  dependent  upon  dipping.  When 
[iaizvi'^co  is  used  in  the  sense  to  wash,  to  cleanse,  to  purify  (as  is 
done  abundantly  \)3^  Jewish  and  Patristic  writers)  such  meaning 
does  not  originate  in  washing  by  dipping  or  in  any  other  mode 
of  physical  washing,  but  it  originates  in  its  own  usage  with  ad- 
juncts expressive  of  ceremonial  and  spiritual  power  to  wash,  to 
cleanse,  to  purify.     Bo.T.ri'^u)  is  never  used  for  jjhysical  washing. 

The  origin  of  this  word  is  in  fid-izzu)  to  dye  (  ==  thoroughly  to 
CHANGE  THE  CONDITION  of  an  object  as  to  color).  1.  Of  course 
i3a-TiXiu  does  not  mean  "to  dye;"  this  is  already  provided  for; 
but  it  does  mean  thoroughly  to  change  the  condition  of  an  object  by 
introducing  it  into  (not  the  dye-tub,  but)  some  new  condition,  other 
than  that  of  a  dyed  condition.  This  filiation  in  general  concep- 
tion is  strong  if  not  conclusive  evidence  of  the  intimate  relation 
between  these  words.  This  new  condition  is,  primarily,  intuspo- 
sition  within  a  fluid,  by  any  competent  act,  without  limitation  of 
time.  In  all  of  these  respects  the  likeness  is  with  fidn-w  to  dye, 
and  not  with  fid:zTw  to  dip.  2.  The  result  of  intusposition  within 
a  fluid  without  limitation  of  time,  is  the  exhaustion  of  the  power 
of  the  enveloping  fluid  to  influence  its  object  or  of  the  power  of 
the  enveloped  object  to  receive  such  influence.  Again,  the  accord 
is  with  the  stem  to  dye,  and  not  with  that  to  dip.  To  dip  is  a 
feeble  word ;  to  dye  is  a  strong  word  in  its  sphere ;  no  word  lias 
more  exhaustive  power  than  has  par.riXu).  3.  Many  liquids  (vin- 
egar, oil,  melted  wax,  milk,  etc.)  which  have  no  coloring  quality 
are  possessed  of  characteristics  which  they  part  with  t©  objects 
intusposed  without  limitation  of  time  within  them :  while  other 
liquuls  (wine,  opiates,  fountain  of  Silenus,  etc.)  do  not  part  with 


SPECIAL    RESULTS.  625 

their  characteristic  qualities  by  intnsposition,  but  do  so  in  other 
ways  as  by  drinking,  etc.  It  is  a  fact  in  language,  that  words 
which  originate  in  an  effect  produced  by  one  mode  of  action  are 
extended  to  embrace  analogous  effects  produced  by  other  modes 
of  action.  Thus  iSdnroj  to  dye  having  its  origin  in  dipping  into 
coloring  liquids  comes  to  include  a  changed  condition  of  color 
induced  in  any  way,  by  i<2:)rinkUtig,  hy  pouring^  by  the  falling 
rays  of  the  sun,  or  by  any  act  however  diverse  from  the  act  of 
dipping.  In  like  manner  [ianTiZu)  is  extended  so  as  to  include  not 
merely  a  changed  condition  by  intnsposition  with  all  its  effects, 
but  an  analogous  change  of  condition  not  effected  by  intusposition, 
but  in  any  way  however  diverse  from  it,  as  by  drinking  wine, 
swallowing  an  opiate,  answering  sophistical  questions,  etc.  Again, 
the  close  relation  with  the  one  stem  and  ^^ide  divergence  from  the 
other  is  manifest.  4.  BdrrTO)  to  dye  Gome's  to  the  threshold  of  a 
usage  in  which  a  change  of  condition  is  exhibited  without  any 
coloring  in  fact.  Thus  it  is  said,  "  The  soul  (/JriTrrerat)  receives  its 
characteristic  from  the  thoughts;"  and  again,  "Is  (,?i/3a//'/iv«v) 
characterized  by  righteousness."  Into  the  broad  sphere  of  un- 
colored  characteristic,  thus  indicated,  this  word  does  not  enter. 
It  has  already  a  double  burden  to  carrj'  (to  dip,  to  dye)  and  re- 
fusing a  third  gives  birth  to  fianrt'Cci),  and  assigns  this  broad  and 
noble  sphere  to  it  as  its  heritage.  This  word,  therefore,  has  a 
legal  right  to  develop  and  to  communicate  uncolored  character- 
istics from  any  source,  and  thoroughly  to  change  the  condition  of 
persons  or  things  by  communicating  to  them  such  characteristics. 
The  related  features  of  iSanri^M  and  ,3aTtTuj  to  dye  are  too  many 
and  too  striking  (while  presenting  all  the  differences  suitable  to  a 
derived  word)  to  allow  of  doubt  as  to  its  relationship  with  this 
stem  rather  than  with  [idTzru)  to  dip,  from  which  it  is  separated 
by  the  broadest  diversities. 

Special  Results. 

Classic  Baptism  shows,  1.  A  thorough  change  of  condition  by 
intusposition  within  a  fluid,  by  any  competent  act,  without  limita- 
tion of  time  ;  2.  A  thorough  change  of  condition  without  intus- 
position by  an}'  power  or  influence  competent  to  control  and  to 
assimilate  to  its  characteristic ;  the  special  characteristic  of  such 
changed  condition  being  indicated  by  the  adjunct ;  3.  A  thorough 
change  of  condition  indicated  bj'  the  absolute  use  of  (^a-~i'^w  with- 

40 


626  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

out  adjunct;  the  result  of  long  and  frequent  usage  in  a  phrase, 
now  dropped,  the  idea  of  which  is  embodied  in  the  single  word. 
This  is  exemplified  in  iSanrt^uj  to  make  drunk  (  =  thoroughly  to 
change  condition  by  the  controlling  influence  of  the  intoxicating 
characteristic  of  wine).    ■ 

Judaic  Baptism  shows  precisely  the  same  physical  use  (vessels 
and  crews  baptized  irrecoverably  in  the  depths  of  the  sea)  with 
intusposition,  and  (men  baptized  by  drinking  wine)  without  intns- 
position.  But  besides  this  sameness  of  usage  and  application, 
there  is  another  and  quite  new  use  of  the  word  in  connection  with 
religious  rites.  This  usage  is  traceable  through  one  or  more  cen- 
turies. The  result  of  this  long  and  necessarily  frequent  use  as 
connected  with  religious  rites  of  daily  recurrence,  is  precisely  the 
same  as  in  the  case  of  this  same  word  applied  by  the  Classics  to 
wine-drinking,  namely,  it  came  to  be  used  absolutely  to  express 
that  thoroughly  changed  condition  which  their  religious  rites 
were  competent  to  effect,  that  is  to  sa}'',  a  complete  ceremonial 
2}uriJication. 

Banri'^u)  to  make  drunk  among  the  Greeks,  and  iSaTzri^io  to  make 
ceremonially  pure,  are  certainly  widely  divergent  meanings,  but 
each  is  legitimately  reached  and  under  precisely  the  same  laws 
of  language. 

A  man  baptized  by  drinking  wine  is  a  man  whose  condition  is 
thoroughly  changed  by  the  characteristic  of  wine — a  drunjien 
man.  A  man  who  is  baptized  by  heifer  ashes  steeped  in  water 
and  sprinkled  upon  him,  or  by  the  sprinkling  of  mingled  water 
and  blood,  or  by  pure  water  used  in  any  way,  is  a  man  whose 
condition  has  been  thoroughl}-  changed  b^'  the  purifying  char- 
acteristic of  heifer  ashes,  etc. — a  ceremonially  pure  man. 

JoHANNic  Baptism  is  a  stranger  alike  to  Classic  baptisms  by 
the  intusposition  of  ships  and  men  within  the  depths  of  the  sea, 
and  of  men  baptized,  without  any  intusposition,  by  drinking  wine. 
There  is  no  physical  use  of /3«-r£'^«>  in  the  ministry  of  John.  This 
word  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  v)ith  originating  the  presence 
or  in  controlling  the  use  of  the  water  in  the  rite  connected  with 
John's  ministry.  The  presence  of  tiie  water  is  due  to  tlie  ijurify- 
ing  luiturc  of  Repentance  and  the  Remission  of  sins,  and  the 
function  of  /S'arrj'Jw  is  to  develop  that  characteristic  in  t  lie  fullest 
measure  with  the  recpiirenient,  that  the  soul  must  be  thoroughly 
changed  in  its  condition  Ij}'  coming  under  tlie  controlling  power 
of  this  characteristic.     This  exhausts  its  oflice.     It  has  no  more 


SPECIAL    RESULTS.  627 

to  do  with  regulating  tlie  use  of  the  water  than  the  chihl  unborn. 
Johannic  Baptism  is  no  less  a  stranger  to  the  Jewish  use  of  this 
word  to  express  a  condition  of  ceremonial  purification.  There  is 
no  such  feature  in  John's  ministry  as  a  ceremonial  purification. 
His  baptism  was  exclusively  spiritual  symbolized  in  a  rite  by  pure 
water.  Therefore  "  a  dispute  arose  between  some  Jews  and  the 
disciples  of  John  respecting  purification." 

Christic  Baptism  is  like  John's  baptism  purely  spiritual  in  its 
nature  with  an  accompanying  symbol  rite  in  which  its  purifying 
nature  is  visibly  exhibited  by  pure  water  sprinkled,  or  poured,  or 
otherwise  suitably  applied,  there  being  no  significance  in  the  act, 
and  iSanrc'Cu)  having  no  concern  in  the  act  whatever  it  may  be;  the 
command  and  the  significance  being  exhausted  by  the  use  of 
water  as  an  abstract  element  purifying  in  its  nature. 

Christic  Baptism  differs  from  Johannic  Baptism  in  that  it 
shows  truth  in  its  ultimate  ground.  John  preached  a  baptism 
of  the  soul  "  £^<j  fj-sTdvotav,  £c<;  acpeaiv  diiapTLcuv^  into  repentance,  into 
the  remission  of  sins,"  with  a  rite  shadowing  this  preaching  ; 
Christianity  reveals  the  ground  on  which  this  preaching  of  re- 
pentance with  its  sin-remission  rests,  namely,  "  Christ  crucified, 
the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  There- 
fore the  baptism  of  Christianity  is  into  Christ,  and  through  him 
remission  of  sin  (together  with  regeneration  and  reconciliation) 
having  been  secured,  the  further  and  ultimate  baptism  (changing 
the  condition  of  the  once  rebellious  and  alien  soul  to  one  of  sub- 
jection and  affiliation)  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
■  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

These  baptisms  of  Scripture,  while  wholly  diverse  in  their  na- 
ture from  the  baptisms  of  Heathenism,  have  no  diversity  as  to 
grammatical  form  or  the  principles  of  interpretation  which  ex- 
pound them.  In  the  phrase  e^'?  r^v  kqivrjv  (^aitrtZo'^Tiov  the  participle 
indicates  intusposition  and  its  essential  controlling  influence,  in 
general,  while  the  adjunct  dq  Xc/j.vrjv  points  out,  in  particular,  the 
specialty  of  influence,  which  to  a  human  being  is  death  by 
drowning. 

In  the  phrase  iSann^ecv  £.'?  ydXa,  the  verb  indicates  intusposition 
together  with  the  necessarily  involved  influence,  in  general,  while 
eU  ydla  shows  the  influence  specifically,  namely,  emollient,  over  a 
medical  application.  In  like  manner  the  Scripture  phrase  [idn- 
riaim  tiq  nerdvuiav^  the  word  liaizriffixa  indicates  an  ideal  intusposition 
with  necessarily  suggested  influence,  in  general,  while  dq  iJ-sravotav 


628  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

declares  the  nature  of  the  influence  specifically.  The  soul  is 
thorouf^hly  changed  in  its  condition  1)}'  coming  under  the  control- 
ling influence  of  repentance  =  godly  sorrow  for  sin.  So,  the 
phrase  fteftaTZTin/ie'/dt  elq  to  ova/m  rob  huptnv  'Irjaou  indicates,  by  its 
participle,  intusposition  (ideal  in  this  case)  with  involved  influ- 
ence, in  general,  while  the  preposition  and  its  regimen,  precisely 
as  in  classical  cases  of  like  grammatical  form,  indicate  the  specific 
nature  of  the  influence,  namely,  tliat  which  belongs  to  ''  the  Lord  " 
and  to  Jesus,  "  Saviour  of  his  people  from  their  sins ;"  the  condi- 
tion of  sucli  bai)tized  ones  (not  ritually  but  really)  is  a  thoroughly 
changed  condition  by  subjection  to  the  Lordship  of  Jesus  and  a 
full  participation  in  the  influence  of  his  power  to  save  from  sin. 

These  Bible  baptisms  stand  on  the  same  platform,  precisely, 
as  to  grammatical  form  and  the  i)rinciples  of  interpretation  as 
Classic  liaptisms.  The  language  in  which  the}^  are  expressed 
could  not  be  more  explicit  or  more  forcible. 

Patristic  Baptism.  Early  Christian  writers  being  voluminous 
and  varied  in  their  compositions  introduce  tlie  use  oi  fianriZio  into 
other  relations  than  those  which  are  religious.  In  such  cases  they 
employ  the  word  in  precisel}'^  the  same  meanings  as  do  Classic  and 
Jewish  writers,  namely,  to  exiiress  a  thorough  change  of  condition 
by  intusposition. within  a  fluid,  by  any  competent  act,  without  limi- 
tation of  time.  The  word  is  applied  to  vessels  sunk  to  the  bottom 
of  the  sea,  and  to  men  drowned  ;  also  without  intusposition  to  men 
made  drunk  by  wine-drinking.  It  is  obvious  that  such  a  word 
could  never  be  used  to  express  a  momentary  dipping.  In  appli- 
cation within  the  si)here  of  religion  it  is  used  as  it  is  in  the  Scrip- 
tures only  with  an  ideal  element.  Its  use  in  connection  with  the 
water  of  the  rite  is  to  secure  the  divine  quality  with  which  they 
supposed  it  to  be  impregnated,  and  so  to  secure  not  a  physical 
bai)tism  in  the  water,  but  a  spiritual  baptism  of  tlie  soul  through 
the  water,  thoroughly  changing  its  condition  by  regeneration  and 
the  remission  of  sins.  The  Patristic  use  of  fdanri'^oj  is  the  same 
as  that  of  tlic  Scriptures  (never  i)hysical  in  the  religions  sphere) 
with  the  exception  of  tlie  union  of  water  as  a  co-operating  agency 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  in  baptism.  The  covering  in  water  which 
obtained  in  baptism  was  not  due  to  pa.nTi'^u}  nor  did  it  enter  into 
the  essence  of  the  baptism,  nor  in  fact  was  anj'  part  of  the  bap- 
tism proper,  but  was  introduced  as  a  symbol  of  another  thing, 
namel}',  of  tlie  burial  of  Christ  in  the  sepulciire.  Baiitisin  as  a 
designed  ipomeutary  covering  in  simple  water  is  found  nowliere. 


FINAL    RESULTS.  629 

This  hasty  glance  over  the  entire  field  shows  the  same  ground 
element  running  through  the  usage  of  a  thousand  years,  and  prov- 
ing panriZu)  to  be  always  a  word  of  power  and  never  passing  into 
the  feebleness  of  a  dipping. 


Final  Results. 

1.  The  baptism  of  Inspiration  is  a  thoroughly  changed  spir- 
itual condition  of  the  soul,  effected  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  through  the  cleansing  blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
so  making  it  meet  for  reconciliation,  subjection,  and  assimilation 
to  the  one  fully  revealed  living  and  true  God,  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost. 

2.  This  "one  baptism"  of  Inspiration  is,  by  divine  appoint- 
ment, ritually  symbolized  as  to  its  soul-purification  by  pure  water, 
poured  or  sprinkled  or  otherwise  suitably  applied  to  the  person, 
together  with  a  verbal  announcement  of  the  spiritual  baptism 
thus  symbolized. 

3.  Dipping  the  body  into  water  is  not,  nor  (by  reason  of  a 
double  impossibility  found  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  and,  in 
the  divine  requirement)  can  it  be  Christian  baptism.  That  Chris- 
tian baptism  is  a  water  dipping  is  a  novelty  unheard  of  in  the 
history  of  the  church  for  fifteen  hundred  years.  This  idea  is  not 
merely  an  error  as  to  the  mode  of  using  the  water  (wnich  would, 
comparativel}',  be  a  trifle),  but  it  is  an  error  which  sweeps  away 
the  substance  of  the  baptism  without  leaving  a  vestige  behind. 
It  is  a  sheer  and  absolute  abandonment  of  the  baptism  of  Inspi- 
ration, which  is  a  baptism  into  Christ — into  the  Name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  substitu- 
tion for  it  of  a  di])ping  into  water,  which  has  no  more  place  in 
the  Scriptures  than  the  English  W  has  a  place  in  the  alphabet  of 
the  Greek  Testament. 

This  result  (a  nullification  of  the  theory  which  says  that  "dip- 
ping into  water  is  Christian  baptism  ")  has  not  been  sought,  nor 
is  it  announced  with  any  feelings  of  triumph  or  gladness  of  heart 
as  against  the  friends  of  this  theory ;  but  it  is  declared  as  a  re- 
sult demanded  by  the  concurrent  and  unanimous  testimony  of 
Heathen  writers,  Jewish  writers.  Inspired  writers,  and  early 
Christian  writers,  reaching  through  a  continuous  historic  period 
of  more  than  one  thousand  years. 


630  PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 


Conclusion. 

This  concluded  Inquiry  with  its  results  is  now  adoring!}'  laid 
at  the  feet  of  Him  who  is  the  Truth  for  his  approval  and  bless- 
ing. 

Whatever  of  truth  there  may  be  in  it  is  his,  and  as  his  is  made 
by  him  the  common  heritage  of  all  his  people.  This  truth  may 
he  establish.  And  all  error  may  he  overturn,  whether  it  be  found 
in  or  out  of  this  Inquiry. 


Q.< 


■J 


Date  Due 


I>  » 


.<       ^ 


